Ex Parte Genslak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13221135 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/221, 135 08/30/2011
74175 7590 08/17/2016
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert J. Genslak
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PO 16208-PTUS-CD 3014
EXAMINER
NOLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT J. GENSLAK, ROBERT E. HEGER,
EDWARD STUTEVILLE, JERRY J. SHEAHAN, and
THOMAS J. LARGE
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert J. Genslak et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1--4, 10-14, and
20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants claim to be appealing the rejection of claims 1-20. Reply Br.
3. The Examiner indicates that claims 5-9 and 15-19 are allow ab le on the
Final Action cover sheet, yet lists all of claims 1-20 as being anticipated by
Matsumoto (Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 3, 22, and 23) and thereafter states
that claims 5-9 and 15-19 "contain allowable subject matter and would be
allowable if rewritten to incorporate" the subject matter of the claims from
which they depend. Final Act. 7. Appeal is taken from the Final Rejection,
and we understand claims 5-9 and 15-19 as standing objected to as
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1 and 11 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for a vehicle, comprising:
an oxygen storage capacity (OSC) determination module that
determines an OSC period of a catalyst of an exhaust system based on
first and second amounts of oxygen measured using first and second
oxygen sensors located upstream and downstream of the catalyst,
respectively;
a delay determination module that determines a delay period of
the second oxygen sensor;
a correction module that sets a corrected OSC period for the
catalyst based on a difference between the OSC period and the delay
period; and
a fault detection module that selectively indicates that a fault is
present in the catalyst based on the corrected OSC period.
REJECTION
I. Claims 1--4, 10-14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (US 2012/0031170 Al; pub.
Feb. 9, 2012 ("Matsumoto")). Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims l, 10--14, and 20
containing allowable subject matter in the Final Rejection, no findings
having been made for these claims.
2
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
Appellants argue claims 1, 10-14, and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 16-
20. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 10-14, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Matsumoto discloses a system and method
including an oxygen storage capacity (OSC) determination module
determining an exhaust catalyst OSC period (by aggregating ~t) based on
amounts of oxygen measured using first and second oxygen sensors (shown
in Figure 1 as 17 and 18) located upstream and downstream of the catalyst
(16 in Figure 1 ), respectively. Final Act. 6 (citing Matsumoto Abstract, Fig.
1, ,-i 8). The Examiner finds that Matsumoto also discloses: a delay
determination module determining a delay period (referred to in Matsumoto
as Tr) of the second oxygen sensor; a correction module setting a corrected
OSC period (at time A in Figure 14) for the catalyst based on a difference
between the OSC period (at time Bin Figure 14) and the delay period (Tr);
and a fault detection module selectively indicating a catalyst fault based on
the corrected OSC period. Id. (citing Matsumoto Abstract, ,-i,-i 4, 19-22, 36,
claims 1 and 2). We note that Matsumoto's upstream and downstream
sensors 17, 18 provide input to ECU 21. See Matsumoto Fig. 1, ,-i,-i 61 and
62).
Determining the OSC Period
Appellants argue that Matsumoto fails to disclose an OSC
determination module determining an exhaust catalyst OSC period based on
amounts of oxygen measured using first and second oxygen sensors located
upstream and downstream of the catalyst, respectively. Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellants, the alleged OSC period of Matsumoto "is in no
way determined based on first and second amounts of oxygen measured
3
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
using first and second oxygen sensors located upstream and
downstream of a catalyst." Id. at 11.
Appellants further contend that, although their Specification states
that the OSC period "corresponds to" catalyst oxygen storage capacity, it is
still a period of time that is not met by Matsumoto's OSA ("oxygen storage
amount") (see Matsumoto ,-i 11 ), which represents an oxygen storage
capacity, rather than a period of time). Reply Br. 5. Appellants further
argue that Matsumoto's L1t represents a time period, but does not in any way
correspond to catalyst oxygen storage capacity, and represents a fixed period
rather than being determined based on first and second amounts of oxygen
measured using first and second oxygen sensors located upstream and
downstream of the catalyst, respectively. Id. at 5-6.
We note, however, that Matsumoto employs upstream and
downstream sensors, which are understood to provide input to an ECU (see,
e.g., Matsumoto ,-i 62), which determines an OSA by aggregating measured
OSA over an OSA period (see Matsumoto ,-i 11 ("The amount of oxygen is
accumulated each time the amount of oxygen (hereinafter referred to as the
'oxygen amount L10SA') is calculated, i.e., every short time L1t, to determine
an oxygen storage amount OSA that is indicative of the oxygen storage
capacity of the catalyst.")). The upstream sensor and the downstream sensor
output a signal "based on the oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas."
Matsumoto ,-i 7. This oxygen concentration corresponds to the claimed "first
and second amounts of oxygen measured using first and second oxygen
sensors located upstream and downstream of a catalyst."
Matsumoto's oxygen storage amount (OSA) is a value obtained by
removing error caused by response delay time Tr of an output signal from
4
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
the downstream oxygen. Matsumoto iii! 14-15. To remove the sensor delay
error, response delay time Tr is subtracted from the aggregated short times
L1t to determine a corrected OSA period, represented in Matsumoto's Figure
14 as time A. Id.
The Examiner responds that it is known to use upstream and
downstream oxygen sensors to determine an oxygen storage amount that is
indicative of oxygen storage capacity. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner contends
that, absent a "clear technical delineation," "there appears to be no technical
difference between the terms used by [Appellants] and those used by
[Matsumoto] for addressing the same technology but using different terms
for the same technology." Id. at 6. We agree, as we discern no difference
between Appellants' capacity measured over a given period (the OSC
period) and Matsumoto's amount measured over the same period (time A in
Matsumoto's Figure 14).
Regarding Appellants' argument that Matsumoto is silent regarding a
component that performs an OSC period determination, the Examiner notes
that Appellants themselves are silent regarding a component that determines
the claimed delay period. Id. We note that Matsumoto discloses an ECU
receiving upstream and downstream sensor input (see, e.g., Matsumoto iJ 62)
and, although perhaps referring to a differing embodiment, the disclosure
shows that an ECU is known to determine an OSC period.
Determining a Delay Period
Appellants next argue that, even if Matsumoto's Tr is a delay period,
Matsumoto fails to disclose a delay determination module determining a
delay period Tr of the second oxygen sensor. Appeal Br. 12. According to
Appellants, Matsumoto calculates its OSA prior to (i.e., a time Tr before) the
5
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
determination of whether the catalyst is degraded, but is silent regarding
"any component actually determining the response delay time Tr of the
oxygen sensor." Id; see also Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner responds Appellants themselves are silent regarding a
component that determines claimed delay period, and that Appellants have
not explained why Matsumoto does not simply use different terms for the
same technology. Id.
As set forth above, Matsumoto discloses the use of an ECU for
determining catalyst degradation (see, e.g., Matsumoto ,-i 62). Matsumoto
further discloses a sensor delay period Tr (Matsumoto ,-i 14). The claimed
"delay determination module" is defined solely by its function of
determining a delay period. Thus, if Matsumoto determines a delay period,
it would follow that such function is performed by a delay determination
module of the ECU. Lacking any explanation from Appellants regarding
how Matsumoto acquires its delay period in a manner that excludes
"determining" the delay period, we discern no error in the Examiner's
finding that Matsumoto discloses a delay period and therefore a delay
determination module as claimed.
Corrected OSC Period
Appellants then argue that Matsumoto fails to disclose a correction
module setting a corrected OSC period based on a difference between the
OSC period and the delay period. Appeal Br. 13. Given that the Examiner
finds that Matsumoto's OSC period is ~t and Matsumoto's delay period is
Tr, Matsumoto is silent regarding setting any period based on a difference
between ~t and Tr. Id. at 14; see also Reply Br. 8.
6
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
The Examiner again responds that Appellants fail to provide sutlicient
explanations regarding the technical difference between Appellants' claim
terms and Matsumoto's terminology and Appellants themselves are silent
regarding a component that sets the claimed corrected OSC period. Ans. 9-
10.
As set forth above, Matsumoto discloses the use of an ECU for
determining catalyst degradation (see, e.g., Matsumoto ,-i 62), and setting a
corrected OSC period (time A in Figure 14) based on a difference between
an OSC period (time Bin Figure 14, based on aggregated ~t) and a delay
period Tr (Matsumoto ,-i,-i 14-15). The claimed "correction module" is
defined solely by its function of "set[ ting] a corrected OSC period for the
catalyst based on a difference between the OSC period and the delay
period." Thus, if Matsumoto sets a corrected OSC period, it would follow
that such function is performed by a correction module of the ECU. Lacking
any explanation from Appellants regarding how else Matsumoto would "set"
its corrected OSC period, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that
Matsumoto discloses a corrected OSC period and a correction module as
claimed.
Fault Detection
Appellants further argue that Matsumoto fails to disclose a fault
detection module selectively indicating a catalyst fault based on the
corrected OSC period. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants appear to be asserting
that this is because Matsumoto does not disclose a corrected OSC period.
Id.; Reply Br. 9.
7
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
As set forth above, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that
Matsumoto discloses a corrected OSC period. For the reasons set forth
above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10-14, and 20.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites the correction module
setting the corrected OSC period to the OSC period minus the delay period.
Appellants argue that Matsumoto fails to disclose this limitation. For the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites, inter alia,
an upstream oxygen monitoring module that determines a first
period between a first time when the transition is commanded and a
second time when the first amount of oxygen crosses a first
predetermined value; and
a downstream oxygen monitoring module that determines a
second period between the first time and a third time the second
amount of oxygen crosses a second predetermined value,
wherein the OSC determination module determines the OSC
period for the catalyst based on the first and second periods.
The Examiner finds that Matsumoto discloses each of these
limitations. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Matsumoto ,-i,-i 8, 20).
Aside from an unexplained allegation that Matsumoto is silent
regarding each of the limitations recited in claim 3 (Appeal Br. 17-18),
Appellants argue that Matsumoto's OSC period "is a fixed period and is in
no way determined based on a first period ... and a second period." Reply
Br. 11.
8
Appeal2014-003750
Application 13/221,135
As set forth above, Matsumoto's OSC period is defined by the
Examiner as the aggregated ~t that is represented by time Bin Matsumoto's
Figure 14. Matsumoto ,-i,-i 12, 20. While Matsumoto's ~t may represent a
fixed period, the aggregated value of ~t is not. Rather, ~t is aggregated until
"there is a reversal between the rich side and the lean side of the signal from
the catalyst downstream sensor." Id. ,-i 11. We therefore are not persuaded
by Appellants' arguments.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites the OSC determination
module setting the OSC period to a difference between the first and second
periods. Appellants argue that Matsumoto fails to disclose this limitation.
Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 11-12. Again, Matsumoto's OSC period
is defined by the Examiner as the aggregated ~t that is represented by time B
in Matsumoto's Figure 14. Matsumoto ,-i,-i 12, 20. We therefore are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments that are premised on iviatsumoto' s OSC
period being ~t rather than an aggregated value of ~t.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 10-14, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as anticipated by Matsumoto.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9