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

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 1 of 34

1
2

acid, with .soil. So one component is the soil, the other

component is the mixture, and when you mix those together you end up with another mixture. Phosphoric acid is a mixture and soil. So in Claim I, where ~it says, quote, "Mixing a metal-bearing

3
4

5
6

material with the first mixture comprising of first component and a second component to form a second mixture," you're saying the first ~omponent is phosphoric acid and the .second component is the soil? I'm saying the.first mixture -- the first mixture is the phosphoric acid, and it is made of sulfate and phosphate. So the mixture -- the first mixture is the phosphoric acid, in this case Prayphos.
Qo

7 8
9 I0 Ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19

Now, where in the 982 patent does it talk about the phosphoric acid having both Ph0sphate and sulfate? Well, we talked about the solubility of water-soluble sulfates being present. That's throughout. MR. SZANYI: If you're going to read something, tell him what column you're in. THE WITNESS: Okay.. Well, let's see. I'll have to go by -- each of these examples would show it.

~20
21 22 23 24

Okay. Here's one. Alternatively sulfuric acid or powder can be.used as a source of sulfate ion in certain solid wastes. Where are you reading?

25

Column. 5, 30 to 34. That's just one that jumped off the page
69

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 2 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
io io

at me. I have to look specificallyfor others. So your testimony is that the statement, quote, "Alternatively, sulfuric acid, or alum in liquid or powder form can be used as sources of sulfate ion"-: Sure. When you use ---closed quote, is stating that phosphoric acid can be the first mixture in Claim i? Phosphoric acid is the first mixture in Claim i, and in that mixture you have soluble sulfate and soluble phosphate, and it's in an acid. So when you have sulfate in solution with hydronium ion, it's sulfuric acid. You also have phosphate in there, so it's phosphoric acid. So when you look at soluble sulfate, it is basically just associated phosphoric acid, if you look at the hydronium concentration as well. That?s one example. There's others in there -Well, let's stay on this one here for a minute, because somewhere I'm lost, and maybe you can help me. Where does it say in this language that the phosphoric acid or that the first mixture that's referred to in claim 1 can be phosphoric acid by i~self? I don't understand your question. Where does it say it's phosphoric acid by itself? I'm saying the mixture ,- the first mixture equals phosphoric acid. Right. And I'm trying to -And I'm saying that the first mixture is comprised of sulfate
7O

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 3 of 34

1

and phosphate. So when they're in a mixture, that -together, that is the.first mixture. There's two components

3
4 Q.

in the mixture that we're Claiming that. we teach. And then you went on to say, as I understand, that phosphoric acid alone can be the .first mixture.

6 7

A.

Phosphoric acid alone is the first mixture. It can be in this situation. And in that case, that mixture, phosphoric acid, substitute Prayphos, that's what the first mixture is. Prayphos, phosphoric acid.

8
9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 A. Q. Q.

And I be.lieve you're saying that because of the sulfate impurities that would be present in phosphoric acid? That's correct. Where in the patent itself does it teach that the phosphoric acid can be by itself, the first mixture?

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.

It's commonly known that sulfates are present in phosphoric acid.

Q.

Okay. So it would be common knowledge from which you would draw that conclusion?

A. Q. A.

Yeah. Common knowledge that predated this patent? That it was in the acid, yes. Whether it was effective in rendering lead nonleachable, no.

Q.

Where does it say in this patent that the sulfate impurity in phosphoric acid would be effective in sufficiently reducing the leachability of lead?
71

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 4 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.

I don't think it says in there. I'~d have to read to find it, but we do, I know, in several locations talk about the solubility of sulfate being needed, and-where it came from. I think we talked about all sorts of different locations and places it could be sourced from.

Q.

Because I really need to know this. If you have a position that somewhere in the 982 patent that says that phosphoric

acid can be used by itself as a sufficient source of sulfate, if it says that in here anywhere, I need to know that. A. I don't know if it does or not. All we know is we need to have sulfate and phosphate present, and if we don't have enough, we have to supplement it. Q. Right, but I want to know, just tell me yes or no, .does it

say in the 982 patent that phosphoric acid by itself can be a source of both the phosphate and a sufficient amount of sulfate to make the process work? MR. SZANYI: Take your time. THE WITNESS: Can I just go read

through -- I'm going to have to read it.all specifically. MR. GRAHAM: Absolutely. Absolutely. THE WITNESS: Okay. Restate your question one more time so I can keep my eye on what I'm reading here.
Qo

You ~have said that this patent teaches that phosphoric acid by itself can be the first mixture in Claim 1 because of the
72

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 5 of 34

1 2

sulfate content. Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). Phosphoric acid. Is that right? We're saying that phosphoric acid is the first mixture and it's comprised of two components essential to make our technology work. Right. That's what you're saying. Now, I'm saying, where in the patent disclosure does it teach that with regard to the phosphoric acid?
io

3
4 5 6

7 8
9

I0
Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Well, let's look at the Summary of Invention, Column 2, 25 to 30. Okay. Mixing the solid waste With a sulfate compound such as -- or sulfuric acid, having at least one sulfate ion or contacting waste particles. That's one place. Now, which part of that would you say is teaching that phosphoric acid can be used to supply both the phosphate and a sufficient amount of sulfate? We're just teaching sulfate and phosphate. Where does it say anything about phosphate here? Well, that's in the balance, further down. We don't care where the sulfate comes from. Well, I understand that, but I'm just trying to find out where in this patent it teaches that you can use phosphoric acid by itself to be the first mixture.
73

20
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 6 of 34

1

io

I don't know. I'll have to sit here and look for it completely, but again, the intention and the way th±s is

3 4

written is that we didn't care where it came from, and if it's included within the waste or the reagents, that's what was intended here. And if it's included in a reagent in one mixture, it's providing what is needed for the reaction, and that's what we taught. I'll have to sit here and go through it. (Discussion off the record.)

~5
6 7

8

9
i0
ii 12 13 14

THE WITNESS:

Let's go to the first one

that we called earlier, let's see, Table 3. Column i0, Table

3.
MR. KRESSIN: Column 3? THE WITNESS: one example there. Q. Where? A. Q. Item Line Roman Numeral 12. Where does it say anything there about sulfate with the phosphoric? A. Well, phosphoric contains sulfate. That's a known. the word? Q. A. Apart from -Inherent, I guess, is the word that's been used.
74

I'm sorry? Table I0,

15
16 17

Table i0, Column 3. That's

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

What's

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 7 of 34

1 2

That's your position, that it would be inherent that the reference to phosphoric there in that example, it would be inherent that it would have enough sulfateto make it work? No. It would be inherent that it contain sulfate. We teach that it has -- that sulfate needs to be present to make it work. That's what we teach.
Qo

3
4

5
6 7

Well, are you saying -Yeah, we teach --~we don't care where the source of it's from, whether it's in phosphoric acid or supplemented with gypsum or some.sulfuric acid from what's been spent there. We don't care where the sulfate comes from. If it can be provided in one reagent as a mixture, which is phosphoric acid, that works. And We teach that sulfates are important to this reaction. Where in this example, Roman Numeral 12, does it say there. was enough sulfate in there tO make it work? Because the result came back at 3.6 milligrams per liter.

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19

And you're saying that it would be inherent for the person of

ordinary skill to solve the reference to phosphoric acid, and

2O
21 22 23 24 25

that it gave this result?~ You're saying they would know that there was enough sulfate present? Well, if they~learned -- we taughtabout having the sulfate

necessary and we saw that we had phosphoric acid present, and they know that phosphoric acid contains sulfate, and we're teaching that it needs sulfate, that would say that, yes,
75

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 8 of 34

1 2
Qm

there's enough there to make it work between the acid and what's already in the s0il. How much was in there thatmade it work? I don't know. Well, how would a person know how much was in there?

4

6 7

Why do we need to? It worked. Well -We teach that it does. How would they be able to replicate that example to make it. work? Did they use any phosphoric acid and make it work? It depends on what type of acid you were using. You'd have to,make sure you had the same material and the same acid they used in this study. How do you know what kind of acid was used in this study? Again, I~.d have to go back and look at some of the earlier patents to find out when this was -- study was done. What
my -What

8
9 I0 Ii 12

13
14

15
16 17

18
19 A.

patents do you need to look at? think this data is in most

I don'.t know if you can, because all of them, if I'm not mistaken.

2O
21 22 23 24 Q.

Well, I mean, how would somebody know what kind of phosphoric acid to use to make it work, or would just ~from the reference to phosphoric acid, they would know to try to find one that has enough sulfate? Is that what you're saying?

25

A.

Yeah, if you use a phosphoric that doesn't have enough

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 9 of 34

1 2 3 4 6
7

sulfate in .it, you may see that it didn't.work. That's why we have to supplement sometimes. In this case we didn't have to. Where does it say in thisexample that this phosphoric worked because it had enough sulfate? I don't know if it does. How much is enough? To make it past TCLP, you've got to overcome the solubility of the -- of the lead species that are formed in that TCLP fluids. So to understand what you're saying, this example, Roman Numeral 12 that refers to phosphoric, you're saying is a teaching that in Claim 1 the phosphoric acid by itself can be the first mixture?
Af

8
9

I0
Ii 12 13 i4

That's correct. And that's based on what you saY would be the understanding of a person of ordinary skill that the phosphoric acid has enough sulfate in it to make it work? If they knew that, or it could be from -- it could bein the whole semantics itself.

16 17

18
19

20
21 22 23 24
Qo

Well -Somewhere there's enough sulfate in this system under Roman Numeral 12 that made this work, and it came from sources with phosphoric acid and the waste possibly. It doesn't state that it wasn't in the waste or was, but we know phosphoric
77

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 10 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Qo

acid has salt in it. It's a mixture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in this patent that says that if you're using phosphor.ic acid by itself it'll work if it has enough sulfate. It's not express.ly stated in this patent. MR. SZANYI: In those words. THE WITNESS: to go back and read every word.
Qt

In those words? I~'d have

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Qo

Or words to that effect. Because we say -- we teach that you need sulfate and phosphate present to make this work. That's what we teach. I understand that. Okay. But what I'm trying to understand -Does it state specifically that if you use phosphoric acid that also contains sulfate, that may in some cases be enough. to treat it? I don't know if it does. I'd have to go .back and read every word. Well.~.

And I would suppose that it does, because with respect to the results,.the results show that it does work. How do you square what you're saying, about Roman Number 12, Table 3, with the two paragraphs in Column 16 that we just lo0kedat? Column 167 "Evaluation of a single treatment chemical," and
78

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 11 of 34

1 2 3 4 5 6
Q. A.

then it goes on, phosphoric acid,."In one. Step reveals that phosphoric acid was most effective in fixation of leachable lead followed by granular phosphate," and of course that contains sulfate as well. Although it doesn't say that there; correct? It doesn't say that, but because it's there, it works. It can work, unless you have to Supplement. Q. How do you square that Roman Numeral 12 with the last-well, with the sentence beginning at Line 53 and continuing to Line 56? 53. Well, let's square that first right away. This is Example 5, and what was the other example we were looking at? Example 3? Let's see what the untreated control is. 32,036 -- or I'm sorry. 3,236 -MR. SZANYI:
I?

9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

I'm sorry.~ Is that Example

THE WITNESS: MR. SZANYI: THE WITNESS:

Example i. Table 3. Table 3. sO the untreated

2O
1 22 23 24 25
Qo

control is actually a screamer, which is really high, but that's a different material that's treated there than this, so you have to look at all of the different materials here. Where does it say what the material was? Well, just look at the untreated control. It's got 3,236 milligrams per liter of TCLP lead in it. I'm sorry. Column
79

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 12 of 34

I0, Table 3. MR. SZANYI: Example i~

3 4 5
6 7 Q. A.

THE wITNESS: Example i, Table 3, Control at the bottom of Table 3 there.~ The untreated control had 3,236 milligrams per liter of TCLP lead. Okay. Okay. That's a scream. It's a screamer. That's very hot. And if you go to Table -- Column 12-- wait a minute. We're looking at -- what was the other one you gave me? It was Column 15, Example.5, Table 7, the untreated TCLP on that was 704 and a half milligrams per liter, totally different materials. Q. A. Q. A. Totally different in terms of the amount of lead? As -- yes, as -- yes, amount of leachable lead? What else is different about the material? I don't know. I'd have to go back and find out what it is, but you can tell it's not the same material because one-it's a huge difference between the leachability of the lead and the two materials. Q. Are you saying that in one acre of soil, you can't have a hot spot over here that has a lot of lead and another area up here that doesn't have very much? A. Q. Absolutely. So these could be from the same substance -- same area, just one part had more lead in it than the other?
8O

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 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 13 of 34

1 2 3 4

io

That's correct, and what you'll see here is that based on these different regimes that we worked, you need to optimize it for those~different types of conditions~ You need to be able to change the system to accommodate different levels of lead and characteristics of the soil. The material that was treated in Example 5 contained a lower. amount of lead, but yet what said here to be a single-step

5
6

7 8
9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Qo AQ

treatment with phosphoric acid was unable to achieve t~he result? Yeah. It's very -- that happens a lot. Whereas -There's no uniformity between materials. Whereas in Example I, which had a much higher amount of lead in the material treated, phosphoric acid alone was said to be effective. .Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). How do you explain that? Different chemistry and different soils. Where does it say herethat these are differen9 soils? Well, it doesn't say where the soil came from, but just by

virtue of ~he fact that you have twodifferent leachable lead levels clearly indicates that it's different material. I thought we just decided that it could be the same soil in two different areas of the same soil. MR. SZANYI: Object to the form.
81

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 14 of 34

1 2

THE WITNESS: Well, it's like a carpet on the floor and a table here. It's different material. It's in the same room and within the same footprint.
Qo

3
4 5 6 7

How about the same acre of soil and a hot spot versus a cooler spot? When you say "a hot spot" -Higher lead content under your left foot than under your right foot.

8
9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Qo Ao Qo io

Well, again, it depends on what the lead form is and how it comes in-. Is it a lead acetate? Is it a battery casing? Is it a bullet? I mean, the chemistry of all of those different forms of lead are different. How do we know that those chemistries would be different from these two examples? Because you've got different levels of leachable lead, plain and simple. And you're saying -And that we've got different recipes that worked. And you're saying that in, say, an acre of soil, you could not have one portion that would have a higher lead content than another portion? Absolutely. They'd all be the same soil? You absolutely can have -- you could have different soils and different lead concentrations.
82

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 15 of 34

1
2

Qo

But I'm saying the same soil area~with different lead concentrations? You probably, could. ~

3
4

And you could have that here; correct? We don't know, do we? The fact of the matter is we don't know, do we? Let me go see what it says, but regardless, you've got a different chemistry there, because One leaches more lead than the other, so it's a different material, plain and simple. One leaches more than the other. And if it's got higher lead in it, that's a different material than the one that doesn't leach as much. Has to be or they'd be the same. Just because your total lead is higher than one or the other, that makes a difference as far as the chemistry goes. So when you say "different material," you're not saying that it c.ouidn'~t both be soil from the same site? Yeah, but they have differentchemistries. In terms of the ¯amount of leachable lead? Yes. That's what's important. That's what we teach that we treat, and that we have to be able to accommodate that variation~and that property of that material that we're treating.
Qo

5
6 7

8
9

I0
II 12 13 ~4

15
16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23 24

And again, comparing the results of Table 7 in the comment afterwards about single application of phosphoric acid with the results of Table 3, where does it say in there that the difference in resuit is explainable on the basis of the
83

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 16 of 34

1 2 3 4

sulfate content? It doesn't. We don't disclose the date or the chemistries in this one other than we use on Table 3, we used 15.1 percent phosphoric acid by weight, which is a very high dose, which I would suspect is probably required, so therefore probably

6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

more phosphate, more acidity, more sulfate, and that is a result of -- if you look at the high levels of the leachable lead. And in that soil that we treated there, I don't know what the total lead was, we presented -- yeah, total lead in the range of ii to 25 -- or II to 25 percent. If you look at Column i0, Lines 26~ 27, and this actually -- it says, "The lead-contaminated soil from a battery cracking, burning and recycling a site" so that's what used on Table, for example, I. Let's go to this one here and see what we used here. It

just says, "Leachable lead and hazardous waste samples." Is contaminated soil from a battery cracking, burning and recycling an abandoned site a hazardous solid waste?

It could be upon excavation. It would be a waste. And if it

leached lead in excess of TCLP RCRA toxicity limits, it would be a hazardous waste. So those could be the same materials, Example 5 and Example I? It could be, but I doubt it because the. TCLP and the EP TOX levels are different. TCLP primarily. But we don't know that, do we?

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 17 of 34

1
2

Could be the same site. I don't know if it is or not, but it has different chemistries or they'd be ~eaching the same levels. ~Q. And once again, I think I asked you--and I'm~not sure you answered my question~-where in these two examples does it explain that the difference in the effectiveness of phosphoric acid used alone was attr±butable to the sulfate content? I'd like you to answer that question directly, if you could. A. If you looked at Column 15, Example 5, Table 7, just one example, and then we'll go through other ones if we need to to see if it shows it, we Show that phosphoric acid -- and this is of Table 7, Section 2, Line Item B, we used phosphoric acid there, and the TCLP report was at 5.9 milligrams per liter. And if you go to the same table, but Column 16, we supplemented that -- we used a three-step in this case. We used gypsum, phosphoric and sodium phosphate; we got it down to 1 4. So we supplemented it with additional sulfate. We supplemented it with additional phosphate. And if you goup further up on that same column in that same table, Line J, we added gypsum. We Supplemented gypsum with phosphoric acid and it brought it down to 1.6. We were supplementing with sulfate by adding that in addition to the phosphoric, so there's more sulfate added. Q. And where does it say in Example I, Table 3, that the
85

3
4

5
6 7

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 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 18 of 34

1
2

effectiveness of the phosphoric acid was due to additional sulfate ~content? Let's see if we can -- if that table shows it. Between the two examples, it doesn't show that, but we showed that phosphoric acid alone.worked, so we didn't need to supplement it. It shows that gypsum by itself didn't work. And again, you have to look at, these are -- there's a huge, huge difference between the two chemistries of the two soils because of the leachable of the lead. So we understand what you're saying, it does not say in Example 1 that the phosphoric acid that was affected was a result of having additional sulfate?
io

3 4 ~5
6 7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14

We didn't add additional sulfate in Table 3. Or the sulfate content of the phosphoric acid? It~was adequate. The phosphoric acid, we added a dose of 15.1 percent, which was extremely high, took the TCLP level down to ~3.6. And where does it say that the phosphoric acid contained sulfate? Well, we teach that it has -- sulfate has to be present to make it work. And sulfate's contained within phosphoric acid.

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24
Qo

But you're saying that's because of what people just know. MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered.
86

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 19 of 34

1

But it doesn't say that in this example, does it? It doesn't say it, no. Here's an example. Let's look at this. There~ is one here. If you go up to~Line Item 8 on Table 3. MR. KRESSIN: ~Which column? THE WITNESS: Column I0. MR. GRAHAM: Okay. THE WITNESS: And Column 12 -- or i'm sorry. Line Item 12, we had 15.1 percent phosphoric acid and we had 3.6. Go up to Line Item 8. We cut the phosphoric acid content down by three percent and we increased gypsum content. worked. Okay. It was a higher result than the 15.1 percent phosphoric. But we added supplemental sulfate to what was already in the phosphoric, so we could cut the phosphoric down, but we added additional gypsum to make up for it. So we still passed. You're saying that because Example 8 had phosphoric acid and gypsum, that indicates that the phosphoric acid of Example 12 contains sulfate? No. Phosphoric acid contains sulfate, and when we cut the phosphoric acid content down, we had to add gypsum to it to get it to pass, which is supplementing the sulfate that was already there.
87

2 3
4

5
6 7

8
9

io
ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Therefore we supplied additional sulfate and it

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 20 of 34

1 2

Q.

But there's nothing in this patent that says that the sulfate content ~of phosphoric.acid is what could make phosphoric acid effective?

3
4 A. Q.

State that again. I'm sorry. There's nothing in thins patent that says that the sulfate content of phosphoric acid is what could make phosphoric acid effective?

-5
6 7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14

A.

No. Again, we teach that it doesn'.t matter where the reactive sulfate comes from.. It could be within the phosphoric, it could be within the waste, it could be supplemented as we've done here.

Q.

In!fact, there's nothing in this patent at all that says that phosphoric acid contains sulfate, is there?

A.

No. MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Sulfate -- I mean, that's common. Everybody knows this. It's common knowledge that when you make phosphoric acid, it's a mixture of impurities which includes sulfates. Was it commonly known that the sulfate content of phosphoric acid would be effective~ in reducing the leachability? Was it commonly known? No. No one knew about sulfates. That's what we taught. Everybody else assumed it was a metallic hydroxide that was working. We were the first ones
88

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 21 of 34

1 2

that thought that sulfate/phosphate will render heavy metals, including lead, nonleachable under the TCLP test. Everybody else used elevated PHs to keep ~[t in an alkaline condition. We don't teach -- we don't teach that. We teach the sulfate phosphate system. And once again, there's no reference in the 982 patent 9o the fact that the phosphoric acid contained sulfate impurities? ~ MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. ~Asked and answered at least six times. Or that any sulfate impurities that might be in there could be sufficient to reduce the leachability of lead? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form of the question. Asked and answered. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Phosphoric acid contains sulfate. Line Item -- Table 3, Column or Row 12, Roman Number 12, has 15.1 percent phosphoric. It has phosphate. It has hydronium ions.. It has sulfate ions that make it work. So even though it doesn't say that the phosphoric acid has sulfates, ~if the person Of ordinary skill saw that result,

3
4

5
6 7

8
9

I0
II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

~20
21 22 23 24

that the phosphoric acid used alone was effective in reducing the leachability of the lead, they would know that it was because of the sulfates? Well, people -MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked
89

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 22 of 34

1

and answered.

Go ahead. THEWITNESS: The people that use~or know

2
3 4

phosphoric acid know that when it's manufactured by the lead process, it's made by sulfuric ~acid on phosphate rock or mineral. And you end up with a liquid material that is called and sold as phosphoric acid, and in that phosphoric acid there is sulfuric acid or sulfates, and those two components are what make this work when you add phosphoric acid alone as a single mixture. So you're saying that everybody who sees the mention of phosphoric acid or a process that was done for reducing the leachability of lead would know inherently that it !s supplying both phosphate and sulfate? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered many times. THE WITNESS:~ Yes. They would not know that the sulfate was required to rende9 lead nonleachable.
Qo

5
6 7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

But I think you used the word before "inherently." I don'.t know if there's a difference between the two, but... MR. SZANYI: Object to the ~form. Whether they recognized it or not, it would inherently be doing it if it was effective? They would not know if the sulfate would treat the lead. And it's needed.tO make it work in our system that we teach. But if they did it with phosphoric acid and it worked, then
9O

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 23 of 34

1
2 3 4

would it inherently have enough sulfate to be effective; correct? MR. SZANYi: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: No~ We show that it doesn't. We've got results that show that the sulfate and phosphoric acid sometimes is not sufficient. And sometimes it is? And sometimes items. We need sulfate; we need phosphate. If either phosphate or sulfate components, whether they're sourced from phosphoric acid and getting up to look at the~ whole -- all the claims and all the patents and what we teach, you need to have the proper amount of phosphate and the proper amount of sulfate. Where it comes from, that's a lot of different sources where it needs to be sourced. There's a lot of variables and possibilities to make it work. As long as those are there, it will work. And if somebody did a process and used phosphoric acid, saya technical or agricultural grade, and it was effective through the leachability of lead below the regulatory limits, then they would inherently be achieving success with the sulfates whether they knew it or not; correct? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: We taught that based on TCLP results. No one showed that before. What if it was successful to the single decimal points under
91

5
6 7

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 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 24 of 34

1 2

EP TOX? Say that again. It was a single what? Single decimal points, ~i and .12 under. EP TOX. That's a different test. And it would have been a Type 1 TCLP fluid situation?

3
4

6 7

Type I, TCLP -Do you know what I'm taling about? Yeah, I do. I have to get it out andmake sure I don't get Type 1 and Type 2 confused. One of them is acetic acid at .a

8 I0
Ii 12 13 14

PH of 2.~8, and the other is addressed to the sodium hydroxide. They'retwo different methods. They're completely different. The EPA felt that the EP TOX was not an appropriate test, and so TCLP was implemented. Two different tests. And you can see on this example, we've already looked -MR. SZANYI: Wait for a question. You don't know what the question is. Let's look at now the, I believe, previous patent to the 982 patent, which is the 936 patent? Do you have a copy of that one? Yeah. Which we'll mark Exhibit 5. (Exhibit No. 5 marked for identification.)

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

By the way, you were named the inventor on all of these patents; correct? That's you that's identified there?
92

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 25 of 34

1 2

Karl Yost, correct. I was the co-inventor. You recognize that patent? Yes. If we turn over to Column 15 for the claims, Columns 15 and 16, I believe there are two what we call independent claims in here, Claims 1 and 16. Do you see those? I see Claim 16, and what was 9he other one? Claim I. I see that. Would those be.what you'd call two-step claims? Twotreatment steps? Well, again, you've got to look at the waste source on those. For example, let's takea battery-casing site, and we get out there and they've been cracking batteries out there, and the way they do, they get all the car batteries,¯ they put them¯up

3
4

5
6 7

8
9 I0 Ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

¯ and they crunch them and they drain the acid out of it, which is sulfuric acid. And¯then they recover the lead out of it;

and the lead that was in the acid that was in the casings are left onsite and goes into the soil. And so then we get the soil. We get a sample in the lab. Wel!, the sulfate's already been added to¯it by someone else, so it's there. So next up would¯be to add the phosphate. In that situation,

that could be considered a one-step, but someone else besides me or whoever's out there doing it might have put the sulfate there. That's one way that it could happen.
93

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 26 of 34

1 2

Qo

It could be construed -- it could be used as a one-step process. If someone --~me -- if I go out and treat that soil out there and somebody else already put phosphate or sulfate into that material before I got there and I picked it up, I may only need to add phosphoric acid or another sulfate to make it work. So I'm only adding one step, but if you look at the chemistry we're teaching, it's two steps. So it depends on where you're standing when you look at whether it's a one-step or two-step process. So the first step Of these two claims where it says, "Mixing a ~olid waste containing leachable lead with a sulfate compound," you're saying that could be something that has already happened, ~say, years earlier-certainly. --on the site? Because ~I'm looking at the chemistry, the reaction chemistry of it. I'm not putting a time frame as to who did it when. I'm saying that to make this reaction--this is.my interpretation--you can have a sulfate. As long as there's sulfate there, if it got there by battery acid, that's a source. So that's one case where this would be a one-step process where I would go put phosphoric acid into it, or phosphate. Where in this patent does it teach that that first step can
94

3 4 5
6 7

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 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 27 of 34

1 2

be the sulfate that's already in the soil or the solid material?
io

3
4

Column 5, Summary Invention, Rows 30 and 35. Mixing a solid waste with a sulfate compound, such as calcium sulphate dihydrate, or sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is in batteries. That's one right there. Are you saying that that reaction With the lead would occur right then, when ±t spilled into the soil? Part of that reaction would. Why wouldn't it have occurred before it even got into the soil? If the sulfuric acid was sitting there with the lead in the battery, why does it have to wait until it gets into the soil to react?

5
6 7

8
9 i0 II 12 13 14
Am

Well, the lead in the acid, it could come from the battery casing. It could come from the battery post. But when you have lead in an acid like sul~uric acid, lead is typically soluble by itself. It's only when it's with phosphate and sulfate that it's insoluble. So when it got cracked and broken and went into the soi!, the sulfuric acid in the lead mixed in With the soil there. It wouldn't be until then you had the next step, which was phosphate, that would render that nonleachable under the TCLP?

15
16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24
Qo

Doesn't the first step -Here we go. This is talking about gypsum powder, which is a sulfate source, zero to 30 percent, on Column 6, Lines 30 to
95

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 28 of 34

1 2 3 4 ~5 6 7

35. Again, we're using gypsum powder here as a source of soluble .sulfates. And we're saying here that gypsum powders is typically from zero to 30 percent of the weight of the solid waste material being treated. The actual amount will vary with degree and type of lead and the waste material or soil and with the initial composition, as well as the condition of the waste material. So we're saying that, yes, you may not need to add any gypsum or sulfate, because it's already there. Alternatively, sulfuric acid, and that's where it. stays. If it's spilled into the soil at the battery site, there's lots of sulfate in those soils. MR. SZANYI: ¯Finish reading the sentence. THE WITNESS: Where was it? I'.m sorry. MR. SZANYI: Alternatively. okay. sO the material that is treated -MR. SZAN¥I: Wait a second. He didn't finish the sentence. THE WITNESS: "Alternatively sulfuric¯ acid or alum in liquid or powder form can also.be used as sources of sulfate ion in certain solid wastes that contains sufficient calcium prior to treatment." So, again, the sulfuric acid being spilled provides that. How about other forms of sulfate that might already be present in the material to be treated? If they're reactive, yes, it works. It doesn't matter where
96

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 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 29 of 34

1 2 3 4
Qo

it comes from. That would be practicing the first step of the process? If it was there already. So, you know, I0 years ago somebody put somesulfate stuff in the material? They practiced the first step. When you come on later and mix it with some phosphate, then you're completing the process. Is that what you're saying? Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). MR. KRESSIN:
or no.

5
6 7

8
9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

You'll have to answer yes

THE WITNESS: MR. KRESSIN:

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you go ahead and

answer that question, because the last one you answered uh-huh. THE WITNESS: Yes. Now, in this patent, which by the way -- before we do that, go back to the 982.patent and Claim 1 again, which is in Column 3. Which claim? Claim i. Is there anythi.ng in that claim that would exclude a step before the initial mixing step of mixing it with, say, a lime material?
io

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Say that again. Yes. Exclude what?

Is there anything that would exclude?

97

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 30 of 34

1

Coverage. Or would this claim in your view cover mixingit with lime, the material, and then mixing it with this first

3 4

mixture? I guess I'm not understanding your question. If someone were to take a -- this claim talks about a metal-bearing material that has leachable lead in it, and they mix some lime with it.
io

.5
6 7

8
9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

What kind of lime? Reactive lime. Like? Lime that -Mag oxide? Calcium oxide? Calcium carbonate? What's your definition of lime? That's why I'm asking. There's lots of different -Well, my.definition would be calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide. Okay. If they mixed that with the material and then they mixed the material with this first mixture with this first component and the second component that you said could be phosphoric acid, would that be practicing this claim? Would they be practicing it if they added lime to it and phosphoric acid? Either one.

QQ

Yeah. Well, by adding phosphoric acid to it, and it depends again

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 31 of 34

1

how much lime, because there are patents that have prior art that show that you need a high PH for things to work, so if you had an elevated PH and~they just added~phosphates, that's a different technology. That's a~hydroxide/phosphate system. You mentioned calciumhydroxide lime. I'm ~assuming water to get the lime to go to a high PH. That's a different technology than what we teach. We teach sulfate/phosphate. So when you add lime, it depends again on your PH system.
Qo

2 3
4

5
6 7

8
9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
io

Well, assuming a range of PHs. It doesn't work in low PH. The lime won't work. A PH that is slightly alkaline. Neutral or slightly alkaline? If it's neutral it's a sulfate system. If it's alkaline it's a hydroxide system. And they're two different chemistries that affect the two different materials that are -- the two different processes that are being taught by different schools of technology. Let's suppose somebody, had a metal-bearing material that had leachable lead in it and they mixed it with ice cream-Let me ---and then mixed it with phosphoric acid. Would they be practicing this claim? If they had sulfates in the systemand they had phosphates in the system they would be practicing it. If they'd mixed it with ice cream before they mixed it with the phosphoric acid?
99

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 32 of 34

1 2 3 4
Qo

As long as it had sulfates and phosphates, that's all that matters~ And that comes from theph0sphoric acid? It could. In other words, if they mixed the material with phosphoric acid, it doesn't matter what you do toit before. It would still fall under this claim, by your interpretation?. MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. In order to meet TCLP, is that ¯why they're adding it?

~5
6 7

8 I0
II 12 13 14

MR. GRAHAM: Oh, of course. ¯ THE WITNESS: Again, if they're -- if they have a sulfate and a phosphate and they're using it to pass TCLP for lead, then that's what we teach. So if they put a calcium sulfate mixed with the material first --¯
io

15 i(
17

is it reactive or is it an anhydrite? It's a reactive sulfate.¯ Yes, ~that's what we teach.

18
19

That would be practicing this claim? Mm-hm.(answers affirmatively). MR. KRESSIN: That means yes? THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry. Correct. So this claim doesn't exclude some sort of previous step, is what I'm getting at?
io

2O
21 22 23 24

That's correct. We're looking at the reaction chemistry that happens within the system of a sulfate/phosphate system.

25

I00.

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 33 of 34

1 2 3 4
io

Right. Adding a sulfate and a.phosphate to it, no matter what you've done to it before? Well, what I've done to it would be nothing, but if somebody else before me added sulfate to it and we ended up adding phosphate to it and it rendered the lead nonleachable, then that's what we teach.
Qo

5
6

7 8
9

Yeah. Even if they're adding a phosphoric acid that ~contains sulfate, if they previously added some sulfate to it, they d still be doing this claim?

i0
ii 12 13 14

io

If they added a phosphoric as a mixture and they added it to a material that already had sulfate in it, that's practicing this claim. And if they had already -Not practicing the claim. To make sure the lead didn't pass TCLP~.

15
16 17
Qo

Right. And if they had already added some lime to it, they'd still be practicing this claim, right? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Because of the phosphate/sulfate system, yes. But there ar~ other technologies that teach away from sulfate that talk about high PH. That's a different technology. Now, where does it say anything in this claim about PH? It doesn't. We don't teach PH. Others do. They teach I01

18
19

20
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-4

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 34 of 34

1 2 Q.

hydroxidehigh PH. We don't teach PH. But you .seem to be saying that depending on the PH ofthe material, they mayor may not be practicing this claim. A. I don't teach PH. I said others teach PH. They teach that the addition of lime and hydroxide and water elevate the PH,

3
4

6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. Q.

and that's the school of thought on the hydroxide system. But that doesn't have any impact on whether it would fall under the scope of this claim since they're still using phosphoric acid containing sulfates. Correct? And all the other people sorted out, if they're using sulfates and phosphates, that's what we teach. No matter what they do to it before? As long as there's sulfates and phosphates present, that's what we teach. MR. GRAHAM: lunch? MR. SZANYI: want to. MR. GRAHAM: really. THE WITNESS: MR. GRAHAM : MR. SZANYI: THE WITNESS: hour or so? What time is it? It's 12:00. Five to 12:00. Do you want to go another It's up to the witness, At some point. Whenever you Do you guys want to eat

102