Ex Parte BRÜCK

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13017058 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/017,058 01/31/2011 ROLF BR/.CK EM-84354 5904
24131 7590 02/23/2017
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
AYALA DELGADO, ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLF BRUCK
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
Technology Center 3700
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—9, 11—17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed an exhaust-gas purification system for diesel
engines of utility motor vehicles, including an oxidation catalytic converter.
Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An exhaust-gas purification system for diesel engines
having outlet valves, in utility motor vehicles, the system
comprising:
an exhaust tract;
an oxidation catalytic converter disposed in said exhaust
tract;
a reducing agent dosing device associated with said
exhaust tract and having a reducing agent injection device;
a reducing agent decomposition device associated with
said exhaust tract;
a soot particle separator associated with said exhaust tract;
a reduction catalytic converter associated with said
exhaust tract;
an exhaust muffler associated with said exhaust tract;
an exhaust-gas turbocharger having an outlet or an
exhaust-gas collecting pipe, associated with said exhaust tract
and disposed between the outlet valves of the engine and said
oxidation catalytic converter;
said oxidation catalytic converter disposed between a
minimum distance directly downstream of the outlet valves of the
engine and a maximum distance of 0.75 m from said exhaust-gas
collecting pipe or said outlet of said exhaust-gas turbocharger;
and
said reducing agent decomposition device, said soot
particle separator and said reduction catalytic converter being
integrated into said exhaust muffler and being disposed
separately from said oxidation catalytic converter and
downstream of said reducing agent dosing device.
Appeal Br. 26—27 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
2
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Patchett US 6,125,629 Oct. 3, 2000
Kagenishi US 6,807,807 B2 Oct. 26, 2004
Treiber US 7,055,314 B2 June 6, 2006
Berriman US 2005/0044844 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Nieuwstadt US 2007/0089401 A1 Apr. 26, 2007
Blaisdell US 2007/0234713 A1 Oct. 11,2007
Ando US 7,906,449 B2 Mar. 15,2011
Jacob1 DE 101 23 359 A1 Nov. 21,2002
Domeki JP 2006-183507 July 13, 2006
Dellora EP 1 712 753 A2 Oct. 18, 2006
Messerer DE 10 2006 051 788 A1 May 8, 2008
REJECTIONS2
(I) Claims 1,13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, and Jacob.
(II) Claims 2-A are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and
Berriman.
1 Although the first named inventor of this reference is Dr. Jacob Eberhard,
the Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as “Jacob.” See, e.g.,
Final Act. 2. We maintain this nomenclature for clarity.
2 The Office Action Summary lists claims 1—17, 19, and 20 as rejected, but
there is no specific rejection of claim 10 in the remainder of the Final
Action.
3
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
(III) Claims 5—9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and
Dellora.3
(IV) Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and
Kagenishi.
(V) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and Patched.4
(VI) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and Ando.
(VII) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Domeki, Blasidell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, Jacob, and Messerer.
OPINION
Rejection (I)
The Examiner relies on Domeki to teach an oxidation catalytic
converter, but finds that Domeki is silent as to the distance between the
oxidation catalytic converter and an exhaust gas collecting pipe. Final Act.
3^4. However, the Examiner also finds that Treiber teaches a placement of
its oxidation catalyst at a distance of 0.7 meters or greater from an engine,
and the Examiner determines that “a person having ordinary skill in the art
3 The Final Action lists the rejection of claims 5 and 9 and the rejection of
claims 6—8, 11, and 12 under separate headings, but the references listed in
the headings are the same. See Final Act. 7—8.
4 Although the headings for the rejections of claims 16, 19, and 20 do not list
Nieuwstadt, we understand this reference to be included in these rejections
because claims 16, 19, and 20 depend from claim 1, and Rejection (I)
applies Nieuwstadt. See Final Act. 2, 10—12.
4
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
would recognize that 0.75m is a result effective variable determine[d]
through routine experimentation in placing the oxidation catalyst in a
distance relative certain application such as engine displacement and per
volume being discharged.” Final Act. 5 (citing Treiber 6:55—67, 7:1—15).
Appellant argues that Treiber combines a particle filter with its
oxidation catalytic converter “to ensure that the heat produced by the
oxidation catalytic converter reaches the soot particle separator.” Appeal Br.
12. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s proposed modification to Domeki
would require maintaining “the particulate filter adjacent to the catalytic
converter (3) and would not have integrated the particulate filter (2) into an
exhaust muffler as required in independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 13. In this
regard, Appellant asserts “a combination based upon Domeki and Treiber
could only reasonably result in disposing both the oxidation catalytic
convertor and the particle filter together, either at the distance alleged by the
Examiner or at the muffler.” Appeal Br. 13—14.
In response, the Examiner states:
Treiber reference is considered as a whole main focus is
concerned when placing the heating element more than 0.7m
away from the engine to have a heating element that can sustain
adequate heating also by providing electrically heating means in
order to insure such adequate heating that could promote
regeneration, see col.2 lines 66-67, col.3 lines 1-5, col.7 lines 16-
21 and col. 10 lines 1-9. The distance 18 to be more than 0.7m
would need to adequately address the heating element
construction in order to provide adequate heating.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains the benefit Treiber obtains
by placing the oxidation catalytic converter relatively close to the engine as
follows: “placing the heating element 0.7m or less would provide for a
heating element that would only need oxidation catalyst material rather than
5
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
having an electrically heating means when it’s above 0.7m.” Ans. 4. In
other words, the closer to the engine the catalytic converter is, the more
engine heat it receives, and the less need there is for a separate heat source,
namely, an electric heat source.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s point (the location of the
catalytic converter relative to the engine affects how much, or whether, heat
must be added to perform regeneration), the Examiner’s explanation does
not address the issue of whether the particle filter and oxidation catalytic
converter would remain together in any reasonable combination of the
teachings of Domeki and Treiber. The regeneration that Treiber intends to
achieve is performed on the particulate filter. See, e.g., Treiber 2:66—3:5.
Treiber intends to regenerate its particulate filter based on close proximity of
the oxidation catalytic converter and particulate filter, i.e., their combination.
See, e.g., Treiber 5:54—7:50. The closer this combination is to the engine,
the smaller the oxidation catalytic converter and/or any dedicated heating
element need be in order to successfully achieve regeneration of the
particulate filter. See Treiber 9:60—10:16. Thus, to the extent Treiber
teaches that the distance between the oxidation catalytic converter and the
engine is a result-effective variable, Treiber does so in terms of the effect on
regeneration of a particulate filter positioned together with the oxidation
catalytic converter. In contrast, claim 1 recites “[the] soot particle separator
and [the] reduction catalytic converter [are] integrated into said exhaust
muffler and [are] disposed separately from said oxidation catalytic
converter.” In other words, claim 1 requires separation between the
particulate filter and the oxidation catalytic converter, and in the context of
Treiber’s disclosure, optimization of the distance of the oxidation catalytic
6
Appeal 2015-002768
Application 13/017,058
converter from the engine (or exhaust-gas collecting pipe) makes sense only
when the particulate filter is not separate from the oxidation catalytic
converter. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s arguments on this point to be
persuasive, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 13 and 17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Domeki,
Blaisdell, Treiber, Nieuwstadt, and Jacob.
Rejections (II)—(VII)
Claims 2—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 19, and 20 depend from claim 1. The
Examiner does not rely on Patchett, Kagenishi, Ando, Berriman, Messerer,
and Dellora in any way that would remedy the deficiency in Rejection (I).
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejections (II)—(VII).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9, 11—17, 19, and 20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7