Ex Parte Gonze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11803683 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EUGENE V. GONZE,
HALIM G. SANTOSO, and FRANK AMENT
____________________

Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 6-15, 18, and 19.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The rejected claims are directed to a method and system for improved
emissions control, and more particularly to emissions control for internal
combustion engines (Spec., para. [0001]). Claims 1 and 15 are the only
independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
operating a combustion engine in a hybrid
vehicle during a first time period and a second
time period after the first time period, the hybrid
vehicle including the combustion engine, an
electric motor, and a battery that powers the
electric motor;
trapping hydrocarbons (HC) from an
exhaust gas from the combustion engine during the
first time period in a HC absorber that is in
communication with the exhaust gas and upstream
of an electrically heated catalyst (EHC) that is in
communication with the exhaust gas;
energizing the EHC with the battery during
the first time period; and

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 15,
2007), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 1, 2011), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed June 16, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed May 12, 2011).

Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683

3
oxidizing HC from the exhaust gas within
the EHC during the second time period.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1, 6-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takeshima (US 5,315,824, iss. May 31, 1994) in view of
Yamazaki (US 6,615,578 B2, iss. Sep. 9, 2003)2.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 15 (Ans. 4-5) because the combination of Takeshima and Yamazaki
does not teach or suggest the limitation “energizing the EHC [electrically
heated catalyst] with the battery [that powers the electric motor of the hybrid
vehicle]” as required by claim 1, or the similar limitation of claim 15.
Specifically, Appellants argue that
Takeshima discloses a conventional
electrically heated catalyst [powered by a
conventional automotive battery] and Yamazaki
simply discloses a hybrid vehicle control method
where an engine of the hybrid vehicle is
maintained in an “ON” condition when a catalytic
converter of the vehicle is not sufficiently heated
to treat hydrocarbon emissions
(App. Br. 11). Thus,
[a]ssuming arguendo that one skilled in the
art would combine these references, the combined
teaching would be maintaining the engine of a
hybrid vehicle in an “ON” condition when an EHC

2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Ans. 2, 5).
Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683

4
of the vehicle is not sufficiently heated to treat
hydrocarbon emissions. The EHC of the combined
teachings is powered by a conventional automotive
battery, not a hybrid propulsion battery.
(App. Br. 12.) Appellants further argue the Examiner has not provided any
reason to combine the references so that the EHC of Takeshima is powered
by the hybrid propulsion battery of Yamazaki instead of the conventional
automotive battery of Takeshima (App. Br. 12-13). However, the Examiner
does provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings as to why
one of ordinary skill would power the EHC of Takeshima with the hybrid
propulsion battery of Yamazaki. In particular, the Examiner states that when
the EHC of Takeshima is combined with the hybrid engine of Yamazaki
“such [a hybrid propulsion] battery would provide an available high capacity
power source” to power the EHC, and once the references are combined “the
hybrid propulsion battery that powers the electric motor . . . would be the
only one [battery] readily accessible” to power the EHC (Ans. 6). Thus,
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and we therefore sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, as well as the rejection of claims
7-14 and 19 that depend from the independent claims.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, we note that the Supreme
Court has stated that in considering obviousness “the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U. S. 398, 418 (2007). The Court also has emphasized “the need
for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found
in the prior art,” and has affirmed that “[t]he combination of familiar
Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683

5
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 415-16. In this case, the
Examiner simply uses a familiar hybrid propulsion battery in place of a
conventional automotive battery, to yield the predictable result of providing
power to an EHC.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 18, Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims (Ans. 5) because the combination of
Takeshima and Yamazaki does not teach or suggest the limitation “rotating a
crankshaft of the combustion engine using the electric motor when the
combustion engine is not in an operating state during a vehicle cold start
condition and before operating the combustion engine during the first time
period” as required by claim 6, or the similar limitation of claim 18.
Specifically, Appellants argue
[i]n maintaining the rejection of claims 6
and 18, the Examiner's Answer states that:
Yamazaki teaches an electric motor provides
initial rotation of a crankshaft of a combustion
engine when said combustion engine is in a non-
operating state during a vehicle cold-start
condition (see col. 8, lines 45-53).
However, the rotation of the engine powered
by the motor in Yamazaki is not the claimed
crankshaft rotation before the engine operation.
Instead, Yamazaki references using the motor to
start the engine. Starting the engine is the
beginning of engine operation. Therefore, the
claimed arrangement is not disclosed by
Yamazaki.
(Reply Br. 5.) We note, however, that when the electric motor of Yamazaki
is in the process of starting the combustion engine, the electric motor
Appeal 2011-012480
Application 11/803,683

6
“rotat[es] a crankshaft of the combustion engine . . . when the combustion
engine is not in an operating state during a vehicle cold start condition and
before operating the combustion engine,” consistent with the limitations of
claim 6 and the Examiner’s description of Yamazaki (Ans. 7). Thus,
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and we therefore sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-15, 18, and 19 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls