Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

12938649 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
12/938,649 11/03/2010 Yinyan Huang 81204798 3886
28395 7590 02/28/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER WARDEN, JILL ALICE
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YINYAN HUANG
and CHRISTINE KAY LAMBERT
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,6491
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—18, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (February 23, 2015). Appellants seek
reversal of this rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we
AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,649
BACKGROUND
The ’649 Application describes a device for remediating emissions,
such as nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, from diesel engines. Spec. 1:8—15;
1:20.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’649 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below:
1. A combined selective catalytic reduction catalyst and
particulate filter (SCRF) for use with an engine including a
reductant capable of being converted to ammonia, comprising:
a particulate filter having a plurality of walls defining an
intake channel capable of receiving the reductant, the intake
channel including a downstream end cap and an outlet channel
including an upstream end cap and an open end, the walls
defining a plurality of pores, and comprising a composition of
zeolite-base metal particles; and
a washcoat adjacent to the plurality of walls, wherein the
washcoat includes noble metal particles present in an amount
ranging from 0.5 wt.% to 1.5 wt.% and is adjacent to less than
50% of the length of the outlet channel, wherein the SCRF is
adapted to prevent release of ammonia from the open end when
the engine is in an operating mode by a combination of noble
metal and zeolite-base metals, and wherein at least 50% of the
length of the outlet channel is devoid of the washcoat.
Claims App. 1.
2
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,649
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4—18, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Ogunwumi2 and Patchett.3
Ans. 2.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for the reversal of the rejection to claims 2, 4—9, and
11 solely on the basis of limitations present in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4—7.
We, therefore, limit our analysis to independent claim 1 for the rejection of
these claims. Claims 2, 4—9, and 11 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants separately argue for the reversal of the rejection of claims
10, 12—18, 25, and 26. See Appeal Br. 7.
Rejection 1. We affirm the obviousness rejection based upon the
factual findings and reasoning set forth on pages 2—8 of the Examiner’s
Answer, which we adopt. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that this rejection should be reversed
because: (1) the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitation
requiring that “at least 50% of the length of the outlet channel is devoid of
the washcoat,” Appeal Br. 4—5, (2) “neither Ogunwumi nor Patchett provide
the claimed single brick structure that achieves 3 functions, namely [i]) a
particulate filter; [ii]) selective catalytic reduction (SCR); and [iii]) ammonia
oxidation,” id. at 5, (3) modifying Ogunwumi’s extruded substrate with
2 US 7,754,638 B2, issued July 13, 2010.
3 US 7,481,983 B2, issued Jan. 27, 2009.
3
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,649
Patchett’s washcoat would change the principle of operation of Ogunwumi
and render Patchett inoperable for its intended purpose, id. at 7, and (4) the
applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the use of a zeolite substructural
unit required in claims 10, 12—18, 25, and 26. Id. at 7.
We address Appellants’ arguments in turn.
First, Appellants assert that the rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Patchett is “silent as to the percent of the axial length that
is coated and likewise the percent that is devoid of a coating.” Reply Br. 1.
As the Examiner found, however, Patchett specifically exemplifies: (i)
a 7.5 inch long substrate and (ii) an outlet coating comprised of ammonia
oxidation catalyst (i.e., a washcoat) about 2 inches in length. Ans. 4—5
(citing Patchett Example 1); see Patchett 13:20-58. We discern no
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Patchett discloses an outlet
channel that is about 75% devoid of the washcoat. See Ans. 5.
Second, Appellants assert in connection with argument (2) that the
Examiner has not provided any rationale to combine Ogunwumi and
Patchett. Appeal Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the
Examiner’s rationale for modifying Ogunwumi’s outlet channel to
incorporate Patchett’s ammonia oxidation catalyst coating. Rather,
Appellants’ argument is directed to whether it was improper for the
Examiner to combine Ogunwumi with Patchett when each reference
discloses different functions.
The test for obviousness[, however,] is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
4
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,649
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ argument fails to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have
been obvious to improve performance of the particulate wall flow filter of
Ogunwumi according to the teachings of Patchett. “A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
As the Examiner found, Ans. 3 (citing Ogunwumi 4:34-48),
Ogunwumi teaches that subsequent application of an additional catalytic
washcoat to the particulate wall flow filter imparts ‘“desired enhanced
performance,”’ but does not exemplify such enhanced performance. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious for the ordinary
skilled artisan to use Patchett’s ammonia destruction catalytic coating along
Ogunwumi’s outlet channel because such a coating reduces excess ammonia
reductant passing unreacted through Ogunwumi’s filter; thereby providing
enhanced performance. See Ans. 3 (citing Patchett 6:6—9; 9:39-45; Fig. 2).
Thus, we do not discern reversible error in the Examiner’s findings or in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the applied prior art would have suggested the
claimed particulate filter and washcoat as set forth in claim 1.
Third, we are not persuaded that modifying Ogunwumi’s extruded
substrate wall flow filter with Patchett’s washcoat would change the
principle of operation of Ogunwumi.
“ft is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it
teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this instance, Appellants’ argument ignores
5
Appeal 2016-003106
Application 12/938,649
Ogunwumi’s specific teaching that “an additional catalyst washcoat
treatment may [] be subsequently applied to the extruded body to impart
desired enhanced performance.” Ogunwumi 4:46-48.
Likewise, we are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that the proposed modification would render Patchett inoperable for its
intended purpose. As explained in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner is
not modifying Patchett’s wall flow filter. Ans. 7. Rather, the Examiner
proposes modifying Ogunwumi’s wall flow filter by including Patchett’s
washcoat in the outlet channel. Id-
Fourth, Appellants’ argument (4) is not persuasive. As the Examiner
found, Ogunwumi suggests the claimed structural subunit because: (i)
Ogunwumi’s zeolites are characterized by a three dimensional framework of
Si04 and AIO4 tetrahedra, (ii) Ogunwumi incorporates the base metals into
the zeolite particles, and (iii) there is no distinction between Ogunwumi’s
base metals and the “zeolite-base metals” recited in claim 1. Ans. 8.
We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—18,
25, and 26 as unpatentable over the combination of Ogunwumi and Patchett.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided in the Examiner’s Answer, and above, we
affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—18, 25, and 26 of the ’649 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6