Ex Parte Haeberer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 10, 2016

12521405 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/521,405 09/14/2010
34044 7590 05/12/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rainer Haeberer
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.
022862-9019 7526
EXAMINER
LARGI, MATTHEW THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER HAEBERER, MATTHIAS HORN, and
MICHAEL KRAUSE
Appeal 2014-005096 1,2
Application 12/521,405
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 9-15, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to "a device for
metering a liquid reducing agent into an exhaust system." Spec. i-f 8. We
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed June 26,
2009) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Aug. 9, 2013), as well as the Non-Final
Office Action ("Non-Final Action," mailed Mar. 28, 2013) and the
Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Dec. 30, 2013).
2 "The real party in interest in this appeal is Robert Bosch GmbH." Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005096
Application 12/521,405
reproduce, below, independent claim 9, which is the sole independent claim
on appeal, and which is representative of the appealed claims.
9. A device for metering a liquid reducing agent into
an exhaust system for reducing nitrogen oxides in an exhaust gas,
compnsmg:
at least one working tank for keeping a working quantity
of the liquid reducing agent on hand;
at least one metering module embodied as an injection
valve;
at least one supply line;
at least one feed pump disposed in the supply line, which
feed pump feeds the liquid reducing agent from the working tank
to the metering module;
at least one storage tank for keeping a storage quantity of
the liquid reducing agent on hand, the storage tank
communicating with the working tank via at least one storage
line, wherein at least one storage pump is disposed in the storage
line, which storage pump transfers liquid reducing agent from the
storage tank to the working tank by pumping the liquid reducing
agent through the storage line, and wherein the storage line forms
a separate hydraulic path, which does not communicate with the
supply line, and
at least one reversing valve received in the supply line
which at least partially reverses a flow direction through the
supply line, wherein the reversing valve is embodied as a 4/2-
way valve, with a first inlet of the 4/2-way valve being connected
to the working tank, a second inlet of the 4/2-way valve being
connected to the metering module, and a third and fourth inlet of
the 4/2-way valve each being connected to two different ends of
the feed pump.
Br., Claims App.
2
Appeal2014-005096
Application 12/521,405
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 9, 13, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hofmann (US 5,884,475, iss. Mar. 23, 1999), Zahdeh (US 6,659,122 Bl, iss.
Dec. 9, 2003), and Leonard (WO 2006/064028 Al, pub. June 22, 2006);
claims 10, 14, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hofmann, Zahdeh, Leonard, and Huber (US 2004/0060286 Al, pub. Apr. 1,
2004);
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hofmann,
Zahdeh, Leonard, Huber, and Sangamneswaran (WO 2006/135803 A2, pub.
Dec. 21, 2006); and
claims 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hofmann, Zahdeh, Leonard, and Sangamneswaran.
See Non-Final Action 3-9; see also Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 9, on which each of the other claims on appeal
depend, recites
[a] device for metering a liquid reducing agent into an
exhaust system for reducing nitrogen oxides in an exhaust gas,
compnsmg:
at least one reversing valve received in the supply line
which at least partially reverses a flow direction through the
supply line, wherein the reversing valve is embodied as a 4/2-
way valve, with a first inlet of the 4/2-way valve being connected
to the working tank, a second inlet of the 4/2-way valve being
connected to the metering module, and a third and fourth inlet of
3
Appeal2014-005096
Application 12/521,405
the 4/2-way valve each being connected to two different ends of
the feed pump.
Br., Claims App. The Examiner determines the following: (1) neither
Hofmann nor Zahdeh discloses the claimed 4/2-way valve; (2) Leonard
discloses the claimed 4/2-way valve; and
[(3)] [i]t would have been obvious ... to have modified the 3-
way valve system of Hofmann with the 4/2-way valve of
Leonard, as both references are directed towards an exhaust
after[-]treatment system for storing and injecting an additive into
the exhaust system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the 4/2-way of Leonard is a simple substitution
of one known purging process for another to yield predictable
results. (See Leonard, [p]age 9, [l]ines 11[-]16).
Non-Final Action 5; see also Answer 2--4. Appellants argue that the
rejection is in error because "there is no apparent reason to modify the
device of Hofmann with the device of Leonard" as proposed by the
Examiner. Br. 5; see also id. at 5-7. Based on our review of the record,
including the Examiner's findings and conclusions, and Appellants
arguments, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9.
We determine that Leonard's 4/2-way valve is repositionable between
two different positions, each position connecting all four of the four valve
inlets to supply lines such that fluid flows simultaneously through both of
the two separate flow paths through the valve, but each of the two positions
permitting flow through the system connected to the valve in a different
direction. Specifically, Leonard explains that
flow reversal is caused ... by a 4/2-way valve (14), and not by
the pump ( 6), which is a "normal" pump ... causing flow in a
single direction. In additive injection mode, this valve (14)
serves to connect the points A and B on the one hand, and the
points C and Don the other, and in this order (that is, the additive
flow first passes to point A, then to point B, then to point C and
4
Appeal2014-005096
Application 12/521,405
finally to point D). On the contrary, in purge mode, it connects
the points D and B, and C and A, respectively, and also in this
order.
Leonard, p. 9, 11. 4--10.
Conversely, Hofmann's 3-way valve is repositionable among three
different positions, each position connecting only two of the three valve
inlets to supply lines such that fluid flows only through a single flow path
through the valve. More particularly, Hofmann explains that
[t]he back-flush valve 20 has three controllable modes of
operation. A first function 32 provides an unimpeded
transmission of the aqueous urea solution 4 [by connecting an
inlet leading to pump 18 and an inlet leading to nozzle 24 ("the
nozzle inlet")]. A second function 34 provides a shutoff of the
urea supply line 12 in the direction of the reservoir 6 and a
blowing-out of the urea supply line 12 in the direction of the
outlet opening 22 [by connecting an inlet leading to air container
28 ("air container inlet") and the nozzle inlet)]. A third function
36 provides a shutoff of the urea supply line 12 in the direction
of the outlet opening 22 and a blowing-out of the urea supply line
"'II 1' • ' 1 1 • ' • I' ' 1 • E r1 ' • ' 1 •
~~ m Ille mrecuon or me reservmr o Loy connecung Ille air
container inlet and the nozzle inlet].
Hofmann, col. 7, 53-61. Thus, it is not clear to us how Leonard's 4/2-way
valve, which always connects all four of its four inlets in each of the valve's
two different positions, may be a "simpl[e] substitut[e]" for Hofmann's 3-
way valve, which always connects only two of its three inlets in each of the
valve's three different positions, or why one would substitute Leonard's
valve (which always defines two simultaneous flow paths) for Hofmann's
valve that always defines only a single flow path. Also, it is not clear to
what the fourth inlet would be connected, if Leonard's valve was substituted
into Hofmann' s arrangement.
5
Appeal2014-005096
Application 12/521,405
Based on the above, we conclude that the Examiner's reason for
modifying the references lacks the required findings and underpinnings to
support the rejection. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9.
Further, inasmuch as the Examiner does not demonstrate that any other
reference, for example, remedies the deficiency in the rejection of claim 9,
we also do not sustain any rejection of dependent claims 10-15, 28, and 29.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 9-15,
28, and 29.
REVERSED
6