PTAB

IPR2015-01121

Umicore AG & Co. KG v. BASF Corporation

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Copper CHA Zeolite Catalysts
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent discloses aluminosilicate zeolite catalysts having a chabazite (CHA) crystal structure. The catalysts incorporate copper and are defined by specific ranges for the silica-to-alumina mole ratio (SAR) and the copper-to-aluminum atomic ratio (Cu/Al), intended for use in selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in exhaust gas streams.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11 and 30 are obvious over Zones in view of Maeshima.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zones (Patent 6,709,644) and Maeshima (Patent 4,046,888).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zones discloses an aluminosilicate zeolite (SSZ-62) with the required CHA crystal structure and a SAR within the claimed range (e.g., 22-40), for use in NOx reduction. While Zones taught adding copper, Petitioner asserted that Maeshima provided the specific teachings for loading copper onto a chabazite zeolite to achieve a Cu/Al ratio that falls within the claimed range of 0.25-1.0. Maeshima specifically taught an ion exchange ratio of "about 60 to about 100%," which, when applied to the zeolite in Zones, would result in a catalyst meeting the limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Maeshima's teachings on optimal copper loading with the high-SAR CHA zeolite from Zones. Both references address the same problem of NOx reduction using zeolite catalysts, and combining them represented a routine optimization to enhance the catalytic performance of the base zeolite disclosed in Zones. Both references being in the same technical field and directed to solving the same problem provided further motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the ’662 patent itself acknowledges that copper-promoted zeolites for SCR were known. Maeshima explicitly teaches that copper can be used for this purpose in chabazite zeolites, making the outcome of the combination predictable and successful.

Ground 2: Claims 12-24 and 32-50 are obvious over Zones and Maeshima in view of Patchett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zones (Patent 6,709,644), Maeshima (Patent 4,046,888), and Patchett (Application # 2006/0039843).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 by adding Patchett, which Petitioner contended discloses the system-level limitations of the dependent claims. Patchett described a complete emissions treatment system for diesel engines, including the use of a "copper-exchanged zeolite" catalyst on various substrates (honeycomb, wall-flow filters), injectors for ammonia or its precursors, and other components like diesel oxidation catalysts and catalyzed soot filters. Patchett teaches the system architecture, while the combination of Zones and Maeshima teaches the specific, improved catalyst to be used within it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement the improved catalyst of Zones and Maeshima within the established exhaust treatment system of Patchett. Petitioner argued this constitutes the application of an improved component (the catalyst) into a known system for its intended purpose, which is an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as all three references are in the same technical field of catalytic exhaust treatment. Zones explicitly states its catalyst is suitable for internal combustion engines, providing a direct rationale for integrating it into the engine exhaust system described by Patchett and ensuring a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "catalyst": Petitioner argued that while the term is indefinite, for the purposes of the inter partes review (IPR) it should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation to embrace both a zeolite alone and a zeolite in combination with binders and substrates on which it is deposited.
  • "[T]he catalyst effective to promote...": Petitioner contended this functional limitation requires only that the catalyst be able to function in an SCR process. Petitioner argued against narrowing this term to include specific performance characteristics (e.g., excellent low-temperature activity or high hydrothermal stability), which the Patent Owner had argued for during a prior reexamination. Petitioner asserted these properties are not inherent to all embodiments within the broad claim scope.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner's central technical argument was that the claimed ranges for SAR and Cu/Al ratio are not critical and do not produce unexpected results. The petition characterized these parameters as "results-effective variables," where the prior art already established that adjusting them would predictably affect catalyst performance. Specifically, it was known that a higher SAR improves hydrothermal stability and a higher Cu content improves NOx conversion up to a saturation point. Therefore, arriving at the claimed ranges was argued to be the predictable result of routine optimization and not an inventive step.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-24, 30, and 32-50 of Patent 7,601,662 as unpatentable.