Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 1 of 34

1 2

.present in FGSP has got to be sourced from that. So the sulfate is in that -- is generated during the combustion of that material. And do you know how the process of creating aflue gas scrubber product works?
At

3 4 5
6 7

Not in all cases, but I know that there's a bioash and a f!Y.. ash, and the fly ash is usually pulled out by a scrub system, and there's acid gases that go up the stack, and they add lime to neutralize it, which actually elevates the PH. What happens when the lime reacts with the acids in the ash? Neutralizes it. What chemical is created? I don't know. Is it sulfate? Could be. Usually that's in the presence of sulfur that's burning at a high temperature and oxygen.

8 9 i0
ii 12 13 14

15
16 17
Qo

O'Hara talks about the. generation of s~ifates in the flue gas scrubber product; correct? Correct. As well as -He mentions it. He doesn't get in agreat discussion about it. He says it's formed. That's all he says. Is .mentioning it somehow insufficient? Yeah. It's present. It doesn't mean he treats lead with phosphate. 171

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 2 of 34

1

Doesn't mean it doesn'.t either, does it? No~ If .you lo0k at Mi.nick, it does.

3
4

If you look at what? Minick. I think about that later on in this. He was the guy that taught that at high temperatures when sulfate and calcium sulfate is formed at high temperatures during incineration, it forms a anhydrite material, and it actually hampers or impedes the ability of lime to work as a neutralizing and alka!izing agent. Do you know that to be true? Well, I'm reading his patent, so I would assume that to be the case. Why would you assume that to be the case over and above what is in the Wheelabrator patent? Well, it's again -MR. SZANYI: Object to the form, that it's in the Wheelabrator patent. THE WITNESS: It is. Yeah, it's sulfate. it's :- I'm sorry. Restate your question.
Qo

5
6 7

8
9

I0
II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24

Why would you assume one teaching to be correct and the other teaching to be incorrect? MR. SZANYI: THE WITNESS: Object to the form. There~ is sulfate present in

that material. Some is reactive, some is not. That material, being the O'Hara material? 172

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 3 of 34

1 2

Yeah. Let's assume it is, for example. So what? He doesn't teach that, He teaches hydroxide. We teach phosphate/sulfate that ties ~he lead out. He teaches high PH, less hydroxide and phosphate. Two different systems. If there is some reactive sulfate in the flue gas scrubber product, then when it's mixed with the material containing lead, some of that will react with the lead; correct? If there is some reactive sulfate, some of it will react with the lead? That was your question?
Qo

3
4

5
6 7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13

Yes. Could. that.

We teach that it does. We're the first ones to do Everyone else teaches hydroxide with phosphate.

Stanforth is hydroxide;~O'Hara is hydroxide and phosphate. They also teach EP TOX. Different flue, a different test.

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q.

In the lower portion of Paragraph ii, you say a sentence, you say, "Instead, one skilled inthe art..." Do you see that sentence?

A. Q. ~. Q.

About two inches up from the bottom? Yeah. Yes, I do~ And at the end you say, "The FGSP would contain only negligible amounts of calcium sulfate"?

A. Q. A.

Yes. What are those negligible amounts? It means that in the studies he did and what would be present 173

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 4 of 34

1

in there would be an insufficient quantity for O'Hara toeven learn that sulfate was important. It wasn't until westarted looking at some of the higher level doses that we were able to see that sulfate was critical. So low amounts of sulfate in there are important, but you wouldn't have learned just from this. Matter of fact, O'Hara didn't. We did, from what we did with our further studies, and we want away from hydroxide, where he's going with the phosphate/hydroxide system. He didn't teach anything about sulfate tying up the lead. He taught phosphate and lime or phosphate/hydroxide, which means high PH~ Why wouldn't he inherently be. doing the same thing .that you're talking about? He's not teachingthat. Well, I'm not talking about what he's teaching. I'm talking about what's happening chemically. He very well could be, but he's got -- he teaches a high PH. But we've already decided that your claims don't exclude a high BH; correct? That's correct. We don't exclude it. We don't include it either. .We're moot. I don't think including is what I asked you. I asked you if they excluded high PH's. And I'm saying we did.not exclude it, but also we did not include it. They did. 174

2 3
4

5
~6 7

8 9 i0
Ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 5 of 34

i 2

Q. You don't require high PH? A. We don't require a low PH or a high PH. He does. But your claims don't exclude a high PH; correct? And they don't include it. Q. A. They don't require it.? And they don't include. ~

Q.
4 5 6

7 8
9

Q. What do you mean by "don't include"? A. Q.
A. High PH. We don't say high or low. We don't care. We want phosphate/sulfate. How much is a negligible amount of calcium sulfate? An ion.

I0
Ii

12
13 14 15 16 17

Q. One ion?
A. Q. A. Sure. That's negligible. What about two or three? That's more than negligible I mean, it's more than a lower

negligible. It's -- negligibie's very small, but present. Q. Pardon? Very Small, but present. I'm not sure I follow you. Greater than zero. You're saying negligible is greater khan zero? It's present, but very small. He didn't have enough to learn the importance of sulfate. There was not enough sulfate present in his study to even learn it. Matter of fact, he just mentioned it was there. He had no discussion whatsoever 175

18
19 20 21 22 23 24

A.
Q. A. Q. A.

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 6 of 34

1 2 3 4

or data showing that by changing or varying that. In fact, his data showed that when he varied the ratios in thebottom and top ash, it was changing .PH. And by that, by manipulating the ratio of top and bottom ashes and phosphate, he controlled PH and phosphate ratio, and he was able to get

6 7 8 9 lO
11 12 13

the lead to leach below the EP TOX level, This idea of a negligible amount and what would be a negligible amount, if someone were using a material that contained a sufficiently small amount of sulfate so that they could prove that it made no difference in the result compared to a pure phosphat8 with not sulfate-Le% me ---would that be a negligible -The negligible --what I'm saying here~is the negligible amounts of sulfate that were in the O'Hara system in his data is negligible in that-there was not sufficient material there for him to see the importance of it. We saw it when we were looking at high levels of gypsum and low levels. .We saw the importance in our results. His results.don't show that. What are these high levels that you have to see to be able to see the importance of it? Well, we looked at some earlier examples where he took leachable lead in excess of several thousand milligrams per liter. But how much sulfate? 176

14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 7 of 34

1 2

A.

Well, you saw the delta. I don't.know. We'd have to go back and look at it.

3
4

Q. A.

Two or three weight percent? Where we -- where was it enough to know that we needed to know that -- or that we learned that sulfate was sufficient or that was required at a certain level? I guess I don't understand your question.

5
6 7

8
lO

Q.

You guys had realized when you were using high amountsthat sulfate was important?

A.

No. We realized it when we saw that when we had low amounts and high amounts, some worked~and some didn't. That's when

12

we learned that you had to have :- you know, if you had real low amounts, we didn't know that. When we saw we had to put high amounts in, we got a positive result in the studies,

15 16 17 18 Q. A.

that}s when we learned that there was -- sulfate was important to the process. So what are these low amounts or high imounts? He didn't have a delta. He didn't report any sulfate data. He didn't show any. Whether it was one ion or50, he didn't

20 2~ 22 23 24 25 Q. A.

show that sulfate was even important at various levels. We learned it by the fact that we had some studies that had low levels and some that had high, a relative term to that specific study. And what was the difference in the result, low versus high? I don't remember. We'd have to go look. 177

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 8 of 34

1

Q. A.

Well, yousaid it was.important. You can't remember? Well, it's been i0 years, 15 years here. I don't know. I could go back and look for it if you want. We looked at some of them earlier. We talked about reducing phosphoric acid content and increasing of the gypsum content. Right there is one example that shows that increasingthe sulfate content was important to controlling lead.

3 4 5
6

7 8 9 I0
Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q.

Now, I think in that example you usedtwo or three weight percent gypsum? But it was enough to know it wasn't negligible. We knew there was a difference between zero supplemental added and what we added with. So because of that delta, we learned that it was-important. We don't learn that fromth£s patent. We learn that manipulating and controlling PH is. Phosphate/ hydroxide system versus a sulfate/phosphate system. Two different reaction mechanisms. Once again, how much is a negligible amount? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered. He said "very small but present!' three times. Why do you want to ask him again? MR. GRAHAM: What is very small? That's just -THE WITNESS: It's .relative. It depends.

He showed no difference at all. That's negligible. He showed that -- he just mentioned it. Matter of fact, it was 178 .

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 9 of 34

1 2 3
4

so neglfgible that he didn't even.bother to put data on it. Therefore, it was negligible in his understanding of what sulfates were doing to lead. Now, he did put a lot of emphasis on PH, which is hydroxide content. He put a lot of emphasis on phosphate. He showed that by changing the ratio

6

of hydroxide and phosphates, he was able to control the PH. And that's one of the ways they promess their system today or further away, is by adding lime or decreasing lime. ~

7 8 9
I0 II 12 13 14
Qo

So a negligible amount is an amount that doesn't make any difference? A negligible amount is that -, no. In this case, a negligible amount was such that he didn't see it. He didn't understand or didn't learn from it. We did. We learned. And that's because the amount he was using did not make a difference; correct?
Ao

15
16 17

No. There wasn't enough there for him to even see a difference. He didn't~ have it qualified, so if it was a small level or large level, he didn't see it. It was negligible. How much did he have? I don't know. Well, how did you know to say it was negligible? How could you say it was negligible if you didn't know how much was there? Well, !ow-sulfur garbage is burned, FGSP would contain a

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

179

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 10 of 34

1 2 3 4

negligible amount, so .if there wasn't much sulfur in the waste, there wouldn't be much in there How much is not much? More than one ion? How about one more? Couple PPM. You wouldn't see a difference between that and i0 PPM. You

6

wouldn't see it. You don't have that -~ he doesn'thave -he doesn't see the difference there. You wouldn't see it to teach that. You won't see it unless you're talking a few PPM and many percent level, differences. That's when~you see the difference, and that's when you see and that's when you teach that -- you can teach that because you see that there is a dif!ference. Here it doesn't matter because it doesn't -- he doesn't teach sulfate. He hasn't learned that sulfate is important to the fixation and the chemical treatment of lead. Q.

7 8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

How do you how -He has learned and teaches that hydroxide is.
How do you know what he's learned and hasn't learned? Did you talk to him? Using .your questions in here, I didn't see any.data in here that says he has, so therefore he didn't teach it. Did you talk to him to see what he'd learned about -I have not. I have not. But he teaches phosphate, and that's supported by the RMT work. It's~supported by practices that laboratories use to control ieachable lead in the presence of phosphate in fly ash -- not fly ash, but in 180

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 11 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Qe

scrubber product materials. Incinerator ash.~ They use lime to control the PH so it doesn't -- so lead doesn't leach. So while I guess you're not real sure what a negligible amount is, you can say that just a couple PPM would be a negligible amount? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: It would be negligible to learn from it. it's not negligible to what our technology teaches. What do you mean by that? Well, our technology teaches that one ion, if you look at the molecular reactions or the chemistry of our reactions, all ±t takes is one sulfate ion to react with lead, and you've started to form the process we have in the presence of phosphate, and that's shown in our reaction.chemistry there if you 10ok at that. Where does your reaction chemistry show that one ion will work to do anything? That's all it is. It"s one molecule. It's an ion. And if you look at the chemical formulas in there, that's what you have. You can look at 936 if you want. It's the first one of any of them. The reactions are in there. One molecule. Just associate it and you've got an ion of sulfate~

8 9
I0 II 12 13 i4 15 16 17

18
19 20 21 22

24 Q. ~The negligible amount that would have been present in the

25

O'Hara process would have been at least one ion; correct?. 181

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 12 of 34

1

A. Q.

It would have, but he would not have learned from that. Matter of fact, it could've been quite a few parts per million; correct?

2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14

A. Q. A.

It could've. And it probably was? But he didn't teach it. He taught hydroxide, and that is what the whole -- he mentions sulfate once in here, that it could be present, and if you look at Minick, he says it's nonreactive if it was present. So it's a nonreactive sulfate, and it's very small amounts, so he wouldn't have seen it. He saw a difference in calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide and phosphate. That's What he taught. That's what his data shows. He doesn't teach anything about sulfate other than mentioning it's present, and that's not teaching.

15
16 17

Q. A. Q.

Inyour Opinion. You're asking my opinion. That's it. O'Hara also used the phosphoric acid; correct?

18
19

A.¯ Yes. Q. How much sulfate would have been present in phosphoric acid that he teaches? Depends on where.he got it from. I don't know. Would have had some; correct? Yes. Inherently?. Yes. 182 .

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 13 of 34

1 2 3 4

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

And it inherently would have been reactive? Yes. In phosphoric acid. So, tell me, as far as Claim 1 of the 982 patent -Claim I, 982. Claim I. Okay. What in this claim would exclude the O'Hara process?¯ What would exclude it? Yes. Okay. Got it. .Claim -- what was it?

5 6
7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

In other, words, when would O'Hara not infringe on this? When would he not infringe? I suppose when he tested his results with EP TOX would be one.

Q. A.

Is that it? Yeah. That's one. I can think about some other ones, but that's -- you know, he's again teaching hydroxide/phosphate, and we have sulfate/phosphate, so...

Q.

Where does this claim say you can't have some hydroxidepresent?

18
19 A.

It doesn't. Again, we don't teach PH. .It can.be there. It doesn't have to be there. Efther way, we don't~ care. He does. He has to.have it.

2O
21 22 23 24 A. Q. Q.

I mean, what else besides the TCLP would you say calls O'Hara not to infringe this claim? Well~, if his PH got below 7, he would certainly behind it. He would certainly what?

25

183 ~

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 14 of 34

1 2

He would certainly -- in all cases, they all comply with this, I guess. What he does is a subset of what we do, of what we developed. Again, though, he emphasizes hydroxide, and that's predominant in the system, so most of the lead that would be tied up in his process, in his waste, is going

3
4

6

to be in hydroxide form. So I'm not an analytical chemist or not an analytical -- not a physical chemist, but you ~could probably look at some reaction kinetics and see what reaction products would be formed based on PH conditions. But if you read it strictly the way this patent is, yeah, they're -what they do is covered by that if it's a sulfate/phosphate system, but that's not what he teaches.
Qo

7 8 9
I0 Ii 12 13 ~4

But forgetting what he teaches, what he's doing would fall under this claim? Yeah. I'd say it would. Now, Claim 12, which we talked about before as being a twostep or two mixing steps, the first one involving the phosphate, the second one the sulfate. Would he infringe this claim? I don't know. I'd have to look at it. I haven't studied his patent with respect to what we're saying here. As far as his.sequence of -He'.s adding phosphate and he doesn't say anything about sulfate, so I'm assuming he doesn't -- he's adding phosphate first. I'd have t.o sit down and think it out on this one. I 184

15
16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 15 of 34

don't know. Well, it depends on O'Hara, when he adds his 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Qt

lime or ~his acid. It takes -- again, I don't know where his lime goes into his system, so -- or when it's combusted with the Sulfur present in the waste, so my guess is the sulfate's present before the lime or phosphate's even added. Again, I don't know his -- I don't know incineration technology well enough to say where his additives are added or applied, as far as the sequence goes. But the chemistry, phosphate and sulfate is ours. The same thing? No, it's not. He's got the phosphate/hydroxide- He happens

to have the sulfates present, but he's teaching phosphate and hydroxide and that's what his patent's about. It's a patent about lime and phosphate. Does your patent not mention that you can have lime in there also? Sure. Then why do you keep saying his is different than.yours

because he talks about lime? Because he's focussed on that alone and he specifically call out a PH which is above seven and a half, which means you

have a higher hydroxlde count, and that is -- the culture an treatment technology is to form insoluble hydraulic hydroxides. We don't teach hydroxides. Why wouldn't you form hydroxides if you used the calcium

25

185~

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 16 of 34

1
2 A.

hydroxide that's specified in your. claims? Why would we?

3
4

Q. Why wouldn't you? A Depends on how much we had. If we put one or two at one or two percent and 20 percent phosphoric, we're going to have an

6 7 Q.

acidic system. So it's not a hydroxide-driven thing. Where do your claims say how much hydroxide you're calling for? A. Q. A. We don't. We don't call that. So you don't specify an amount? I don't think we specify an amount on calcium oxide, but I may be wrong. I'd have to go look at it. We talk about ranges of sulfates and phosphate. We also talk about using -- I think someplace we have lime there mentioned. I don't remember which patent~ Q. Do you remember what Markush Group is? A. I have no idea. I saw.that somewhere and I don't know what ¯ it is. Is it a lawyer term? MR~ SZANYI: Just wait for the question. .

8
9 i0 ii 12 13 14

is
16 17

18
2O 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Q

If we look at Claim 5 on the 982 patent, I can just tell you that's the ~example of the Markush Group, where it says, "Selected from the group consisting of." Do you see that? Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). Now, you'll notice that it's referred to the second component that is mentioned in Claim 1 as being the second component of 186

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 17 of 34

1
2

the first mixture? Are we talking Claim 5 now? Yes. Okay.~ Method according to Claim I, wherein said first component... MR. SZANYI: You're¯ reading the wrong

3
4

7 8
9

one.

THE WITNESS: So this is 982, Claim 5. This is why I did this., so I can understand it. Okay. So you've got a metal ~bearing material that's mixed with an additive that's comprised of a first mixture, and in that, th~ first component consists of sulfate, halite and silicate, and you're mixing it with a second component ~of phosphate. Okay. Now, what was your question? Would O'Hara infringe Claim 5? Yes, if he added phosphoric acids. As the second component of the first mixture? If he used

I0
II 12 13 14

15
16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

phosphoric acid as the second component of the first mixture, what w~uld he be using as the first component?. The sulfate that's in the phosphoric acid. I thought .the phosphoric acid already had sulfate in it. That's what I just said~. The first mixture is phosphoric acid. But Claim 5 says that the second component is phosphoric acid.

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 18 of 34

1 2 3 4
Qo

The first -- okay. The first mixture. I~m sorry. The first mixture, let's say, is the ash that has been combusted and lime is added to it. Is that fair enough to say? And then you're adding phosphoric acid? Well, to be honest with you, I'm having trouble understanding how the first mixture could be phosphoric acid when Claim 5 ~ says that the second component -Okay. Well, the first mixture is comprised of -- the first mixture -- okay, this mixture is comprised of two things, sulfate and phosphoric acid. That's what the first mixture is equal to. Where is the sulfate coming from? If the second component is phosphoric acid, where is the sulfate coming from? I'm saying -- a first mixture, for example, would be the ash that"s been treated with phosphoric acid. That would bethe first mixture. ..

6
7

8
9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17

So you'd have the first mixtu.re, which is ash? It could, also be considered that phosphoric acid is the first mixture. It depends on which way you're looking at it. If sulfate -- let's say he's got sulfate -~ using your rationale, if the sulfate in the ash material is reactive, he's got a first mixture that contains -- you can't -- you've got to have a first mixutre that's got sulfate and phosphoric already mixed into it. So the first mixture on that would be the ash with the sulfate and the phosphoric, sothe end of 188

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 19 of 34

that is the first mixture. Sulfate is the 2 So there would be sulfate in there twice? first component and then -A. Q. It could be in there twice. It could be in there twice. And the second component is the phosphoric acid that contains sulfate impurities?
Ao

3
4

5
6

7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

Well, there's two ways to look at it. The first mixture could be locked at as the end product that O'Hara generates after everything's been added. That could be the first

mixture. Because then you let it cure. Or the first mixture

could be phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid as is comprised -it's a mixture -- it's the first mixture in this instance. It's comprised of sulfate and phosphoric acid.
Q0

So the first mixture-Two ways to look at it. --in your scenario-Two scenarios I just gave you. --the first mixture is phosphoric acid that has a component, a second component, that's also phosphoric acid?

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Qo io

Yeah. It's H3PO4. Is a molecular form of phosphoric acid. When you buy technical grade phosphoric, for example, it

contains sulfate and it contains H3PO4 at the molecular leve and it's called phosphormc acid. But do you not think it would be redundant to say that the first mixture is phosphoric acid and then to say that the 189

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 20 of 34

1 2
io

second component is also phosphoric acid9 could be, but you asked me for two -- alternatives on how it would be considered that way and I just gave you two. Where

4

the first mixture is technical-grade phosphoric acid, that's one scenario, and then that fi~rst mixture is comprised of sulfate and phosphoric acid, or you look at the end product that O'Hara generates, and that thfng is the first mixture. It's another wayto look at it. Now, you said that all phosphoric acid inherently contains sulfates? Yes. Let's move to the 123 patent, if we could. Take a look there at Claim i. Okay. Same. question about Claim 1 with regard to O'Hara. Tell me if you agree with me that O'Hara would infringe Claim 1 of this 123 patent,~ the O'Hara process of the 356 patent, in your opinion. I would say yes. And looking at Claim 4, where it talks about the second component being an aqueous phosphate; Claim 5, the second component is phosphoric acid, would you apply the same rationale that you discussed with regard to the 982 patent? Yes. Moving to Claim 15 of the -190

5 6
7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13

14
15 16 17 18 19

2o
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 21 of 34

1 2 3 4 5

A.

Well, let me back up, because there is a difference here, because-TCLP is what we teach, and O'Hara teaches EP TOX, so there is a difference there.

Q. A.

Where does it talk about TCLP in Claim i? It's the end product. 123? On which patent are we looking at?

7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14

Q. Yes. A. Column 20, we just said it was below five milligrams per liter. MR. SZANYI: Which is -- isn't that the TCLP test? THE WITNESS: There's what the data is that was used in here. That's what it's referring .to.
Qo

I think you said earlier you didn't apply any construction to the claims?

16 17 18 19 mean?

MR. SZANYI: I think he said he didn't understand what you meant by "the construction"? THE WITNESS: What does Construction

2O
21 22 apply --.

MR. SZANYI:

He didn't say he didn't

Interpretation that predicts the interpretation Of the claims of what they mean by the court. No. So Claim 15, would the O'Hara process infringe Claim 15 of
191,

23
24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 22 of 34

1

the 123 patent? Yes. Moving to the 485 patent, which I don't recall which exhibit number that was, it was the last of the asserted patents.

2 3
4

A.
6 7

485? Yes.
(Exhibit No. 16 marked for identification.)

Q.

8 9 I0
II 12 13 14 A. Q. A. Q. A.
io

Okay. Same question on Claim 1 with regard to the O'Hara group process, the process described in the O'Hara patent. Would that infringe that ciaim? We might be missing some pages here. It's Column 22 and 23. I'm sorry. What claim numbers were they on? Claim I? Yeah. I would say yes. This claim covers O'Hara from the chemistry side of it. Because he's adding sulfate and phosphate together.

15
16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23 24

Q.

The two, what we're calling tad patents, the 367 and the 608 patents, I believe Dr. Pal is not included as an inventor. Do you recall that?

A. I remember. It's right here, I think. On one of them he's not. 367. I don't know about the other one. I think the other one he was. 192

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 23 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 I0
Ii 12 13 14

Q. A.

Why would he be included on one and not the other? I can't remember what the rationale for that was. Let me look at the claims a minute We have two 367s here.

MR. SZANYI:. We marked it twice. MR.. KRESSIN: exhibit numbers for one? THE WITNESS: MR. SZANYI: So, you don't recall? I don't remember why that was done. Are you aware of adispute between Dr. Pal and Sevenson over th~t issue? Over this issue, no. You haven't been involved in that or -Involveddirectly? Or consulted about it? Asked about it? No. Let me back up that last question. I will say thaton the one where Yost et al. is listed, that Steve Chisick and I did most of the work on it. That work being what? Oh, reviewing the data and going through the chemistries. Who generated the data? A laboratory in Santa Fe, New Mexico. . At whose direction? Mine. 193
Yes. There's 608 right there.

Are you saying we have two

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22

23
24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 24 of 34

1

Were you employed by Sevenson at the time? I was at that time. Let me show you a treatability report which we'll mark Exhibit 17 pertaining to Eljer Plumbingware site. (Exhibit No. 17 marked

2 3
4

6

for identification.)

7 8
9 MR. SZANYI: it; is that correct? MR. GRAHAM : to us. MR. SZANYI: Okay. I didn't know if they got cut off or not. That's why I was asking. Have you produced this to us in this litigation? MR. GRAHAM: I thought so. MR. SZANYi: It doesn't have your. Bates Just the way it was produced There's no Bates numbers on

I0
ii 12

13
14

15
16 17 18 19

number on it.
MR. GRAHAM: We have talked about this in other depositions, I know. I believe it was discussed in the 30(b) (6). I know Mike and David were given strict instructions to produce everything. MR. SZANYI: Whenever you produce something, it's supposed to have a number on it, right? When you produce something -MR. GRAHAM: It should have. I don't. 194

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 25 of 34

know why it doesn't. Do you recall this project?
no

I do. What was it? It was a project that MAECORP did for Household Manufacturing. And I don't know. Did we do that job in

7 8 9

Marysville, or two projects -- two facilities that Household had. One was in Marysville, and I don't remember the other city in Ohio, so I'm not sure if this is the one that went full scale or the other one did. They're both Eljer. So I don't know if this One actually went full scale. NoW, this thing was presented to Dames & Moore by MAECORP, and is dated April 7, 1989, according to the front page? A. Q. Okay. So the actual work for Eljer that's discussed in here took place prior to April 7th? Well, I'm trying to figure out, this is a treatability, so I want to know -- I don't know -if it went to full scale or not This is just a report of the lab treatability, it sounds like. doing treatability studies is practicing your invention? Correct? A. Q. Yes.

IO
ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Now, you've taken a position in your report, I believe, that

So why would you be making a distinction on this in terms of 195

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 26 of 34

1

whether it .went to full scale versus being a treatability report? I'm just trying to get the.time frame because I haven't seen

4

this in so long. If you would, turn to Page 4. There's a mention of 2.5 percent LP-I. What is LP-I, or what was it?
io

5
6

7
9 I0 ii 12 13 14

I don't have a clue. Well, we were told to ask you. Well, it was 1989. What is LFA? Again, I -Liquid fixation agent? Could be some kind of fly.ash. You know, don't know. I I don't know. Dhiraj might know.

just don't know. We sometimes put codes to things so people didn.'t know what we were doing~with it. It.worked here, .i see.
Qo

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
io

Do you know what technology was used for this site? Again,' that's what I was trying to see if this is the one that went full scale or not~ I just don't recall. I think over on Page 8 it refers to LFA as MAECORP's lead fixating agent. Well, let's see. At .i0 percent and general reagent, GR, at five percent. It was probably phosphoric acid and gypsum. Which one would be gypsum? The GR? 196

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 27 of 34

1
2

Don't know. This is on selenium and EP TOX, so .... What kind of phosphoric acid would have been used? Back then, we probably ~- in the laboratory, probably used '~ . reagent-grade acid.. How much sulfate does reagent grade have in it?

3
4

6

I would have to look it up. I don't know. A small amount? Smaller than technical grade. Less than technical grade. How much does technical grade have? MR. SZANYI: THE WITNESS: and it was all over the board. A range of the few PPM to several weight per6ent? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS:~ Again, it depends on where you buy it from. You'd have to look at all the different sources of where you'd get it. But if this treatability report, as you~say, used phosphoric acid, then it would have used a reagent that contained both phosphate.and sulfate ions; correct? That's correct, but I would suppose that, looking at the summary, the last page, it talks about a volume increase being nearly 15 percent. I would suppose that the i0 percent was the gypsum and the five percent was the Object to the form. We already answered that,

7 8
9

i0
ii 12 13 14 15 16 17:

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

197

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 28 of 34

1 2 3
4 5 6 7
Qo

phosphoric.~ So LFA was probably the gypsum component. And the GR would have been the phosphoric acid? Probably. But I may be wrong. It's just a guess based on seeing 15 percent. Let me show you another treatability report, which we'll mark 18. It refers to a Lee Farms project. (Exhibit No. 18 marked for identification.)

8
9

i0
ii 12 13 i4 A. Q. A.

Do you recall that? I don't recall the report, but... But you recall the project? But I do recall the project. In great detail? I hope so. don't remember all of it. Been a while. Q. Page~ i, the fourth line refers to the MAECTITE process. I

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. Okay. Q. A. What was that re.ferring to? Again,~ the same thing, treatment of lead, leachable lead with phosphate and sulfate. Q. A. Now, this document was disclosed to the USEPA; correct? Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). As part of that project. It was given to them. Q. A. On.April 12th, 1990? That's the date that's on here. Whether they got it that day or a couple days after, I don't know the answer to that. 198

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 29 of 34

1
2

Qm

Would it have been on or about? On or about, correct. Was MAECORP paid for this warp? I don't believe so. We were On a time and materials contract, and an emergency response, so I don't believe we

3 4
6

were paid for that. You did this for free? We were on an emergency response contract to go treat ~it. Was this done publicly? What? The job? Yes. Yeah. EPA funded it.

7 8
9

I0
ii 12

13
14

On Page 4, it talks about.the EP TOX lead being lessthan five, and the TCLP being less than .51. Do you see that? A. "The. objective was set todecrease EP TOX lead to less than 5 and TCLP lead to less than .51." Okay. Q. A. Why the difference there? Because EP TOX is a less rigid test than TCLP, so if you actually had TCLP at five, YOur EP Tox is going to be' screaminghigh above that] And this was in '89, '90, so that was about the time the EPA switched from EP TOX to TCLP. So they're probably trying to demonstrate both, because they felt that maybe that was going to kick in while we were out there. I don't remember. Q. What was the MAECORP mobile lab S/E procedure? 199

15
16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 30 of 34

1

A. Q. A.

Sonication extraction-procedure. Was that intended to simulate -Yeah. It's like RMTs or whoever uses a~modified TCLP, we use the Sonica~ion system to try and take some time out ofthe extraction procedure, and then if we got results, there's a

2 3
4

6 7

correlation between our tests and the Long full-scale test, and we would use that as a correlation to -- as a control when we got certain results -- what we thought passed and we ran at full scale the~proper test to corroborate it. Q. On Page q, about two thirds of the way down, it talks about batches that did not meet the regulatory criteria or are processed again after troubleshooting. A. Q. A. Q. Page 7? Yeah. I'm sorry. Go ahead. About two thirds of the way down, it says, "Batches that do not meet the regulatory criteria are processed again." Would that be what you would call retreatment? A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes. What kind of acid was used in this work? I don't remember. You don't know if it was phosphoric acid? Oh, it was phosphoric acid. I thought you meant -- yeah, it was phosphoric. Q. Turning to Page I0, the first full paragraph, it says, "It's
200

8
9

i0
II 12 13 14

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 31 of 34

1

evident from the data on Table 7 that leachable lead could be immobilized in black ash material with Step 2 of the MAECTITE process alone." What does that mean? Okay. Go down to the bottom Of the Table 7, ~and look at Test Run 5 and 6.

2 3
4

6 7

Yes. It means Step 2, Reagent B, was all~ it took to treat it. We didn't need to use Powder A. So you did it in a single step? Did we do it in a single step? With only Reagent B? On the job site? Full scaie or in the treatability? The treatability we did both ways. But some of the tests were done with only one step? Test Runs 5 and 6? Well, we only used one additive, one reagent. And that would have been phosphoric acid? I wouid say yes, because up above it talks about Powder A and Reagent B. Did I see that somewhere? Yes. Andthe result was Under MAECORP S/E lead leachabiligies of .2 and .I?
iw

8
9

i0
ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23 24

Correct. Would that predict a successful result under TCLP? Again, I don't know if we were trying to get it below TCLP o~ EP TOX. I think we were trying to do both. So this was more

25

201

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 32 of 34

1 2 3 4 ~5
6 7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17

of a screening process here, but it did show that it dropped it down..To what would generallybe considered -- you could predict thiswould be successful under TCLP? I was never really good at using a predictive method, but that was a control that would show thai we did see -- let's go back to Table 6. Same material, fine black ash mater±al, so you go back to Table 6 on Page 9~, Line 3. Untreated was 52.6 milligrams per liter. That's what the raw material was untreated. So -Solthen you go onto Table 7, i0 percent goes to Reagent B, generating two different results, one at .2 one at .i using this procedure? ~So my guess is that under -- or seeing that reduction, you would predict that this process was going to reduce the leachability of lead.~ Whether it took it below

the TCLP or EP TOX, we didn't know that until we actually did the -- verified it using the proper procedure.
Qo

18
19

But you eventually did ~erify that it would work? And it looks like we did --that's five percent~ I don't know if I'~m -- I!ll have to go. back and look for that data, then, at I0 percent for Reagent B and see if we did it. Well, the statement, again, on Page 10,~the sentence, "It is evident from the data.in Table 7 that leachable lead could b~ immobilized with Step 2 of the process alone." 202

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 33 of 34

Yeah. It could be immobilized. Is that not a statement that would be successful under TCLP?

What would ,,immobilized" mean? Well, it was immobilized under this data in conduction with this sonication extraction procedure. It doesn't mean it's 7 8 9
Qo

immobile as defined by EP TOX or TCLP. How much deviation did you find between the sonication extraction method and TCLP? It was all over the board. We ended up avoiding or banning that process in later days with Sevenson. We were never able to get it -- to fully correlate to anything. It did give us a screening process, but we were never able to correlate it to actual TCLP or EP TOX. Q. Were you able to determine sort of a no-greater-than---? A. No. We were just able to see relative magnitudes of reduction.
Qo

i0
II 12 13 14

;_6 17 3.8 19 2O 21 22 23

Would a lower magnitude make a difference? I couldn't say that universally we got that. We tried to predict it and we tried to develop some models through some linear relationships- We were never able to get that to work. MR. SZANYI: a second?

Can we go off the record for

25

Discussion off the record.) 203

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-7

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 34 of 34

1

On Page 13, there's a. statement that MAECORP's S/E procedure generates test results that are comparable~to TCLP lead results. Do you see that? Mm-hm (answers affirmatively)., Is that untrue?

6 7

Well, we thought it did at the time. I think we tried to continue it later on at Sevenson, and it ended up not doing it.
Qm

8 I0
Ii 12

Is selenium a radioactive material? I suppose it could be a radioactive form of selenium, but that's not what this was. Does selenium naturally form radfoactive isotopes in nature? I don't know. Your definition of soil, I think we talked about before, includesclay? Clay can be a soil. How about sand? Sand is a soil. Let me show you what we'll mark, I guess, 19, which is a MAECTITE Treatment Process Technical Information Package. (Exhibit No. 19 marked for identification.)

13
14 15 16 17

18
19 20 21 22

23
24 If you could turn to PAL00772, in the middle paragraph, it says, "Optimization of the MAECTITE Treatment Process

204 .