Ex Parte Kaefer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13000941 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/000,941 02/09/2011
34044 7590 09/23/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian Kaefer
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.
022862-9116 7611
EXAMINER
TRAN,BINHQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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 SEBASTIAN KAEFER
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP,
and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112( d) or pre-AIA § 112, fourth
paragraph, as being of improper dependent form; claims 14--16, 22-30, and
33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hofmann (US 5,884,475,
iss. Mar. 23, 1999); and claims 17-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Hofmann and Marko (US 6,387,336 B2, iss. May 14, 2002).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is an exhaust gas posttreatment device for an
internal combustion engine. Spec. i-f 10. Claim 14, reproduced below with
paragraph indentation added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
14. An exhaust gas posttreatment device for an internal
combustion engine, comprising:
an exhaust gas tube; an SCR catalytic converter;
a metering valve for injecting a gaseous reducing agent
into the exhaust gas tube;
a heatable storage container containing at least one
storage substance for the reducing agent; and
a buffer reservoir wherein the buffer reservoir is heatable,
the storage substance is embodied such that the reducing agent
can be released in gaseous form from the storage substance by
the action of temperature in a releasing process which is
reversible, and wherein an overpressure valve is provided
between the buffer reservoir and the metering valve.
OPINION
Section 112 - Proper Dependent Form
Claim 33 recites: "A control unit for an internal combustion engine,
which operates by the method of claim 24." Claims App. Claim 24, in tum,
is directed to a method for operating an exhaust gas posttreatment device.
Id. Claim 34 reads as follows:
34. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
computer program instructions for a control unit of an internal
combustion engine, wherein when the instructions are executed,
the control unit performs a method as defined by claim 24.
Claims App. (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 35 reads as follows:
35. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
computer program instructions for a control unit of an internal
2
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
combustion engine, wherein when the instructions are executed,
the control unit performs a method as defined by claim 30.
Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner rejects claims 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being of
improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the
claim upon which they respectively depend, or for failing to include all of
the limitations of the claim upon which they respectively depend. Final
Action 2. The Examiner recites the limitations from claims 33-35, but does
not otherwise elaborate on why the claims are deemed deficient. Id. In
response to Appellants' traverse (Appeal Br. 5), the Examiner does not
defend or otherwise address the Section 112 rejection in the Examiner's
Answer. See generally Ans.
The Examiner carries a procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case by notifying the applicant of the reasons for a rejection, together
with "useful" information for judging of the propriety of continuing
prosecution of an application. See 35 U.S.C. § 132. Section 132 "is violated
when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from
recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d
1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Here, the Examiner's rejection lacks sufficient detail to make out a
prima facie case. Accordingly, we do not sustain the section 112 rejection of
claims 3 3-3 5.
3
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
Anticipation by Hofmann
Claims 14-16, 22, and 23
The Examiner finds that Hofmann discloses all of the limitations of
claim 14. Final Action 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Hofmann' s reducing agent can be released in gaseous form from the storage
substance by the action of temperature in a releasing process that is
reversible. Id. at 4.
Appellant traverses the rejection by arguing that Hofmann fails to
disclose a reducing agent in "gaseous form." Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
contends that Hofmann discloses an aqueous urea solution that is sprayed
into an exhaust gas line. Id. Appellant also argues that Hofmann fails to
disclose a reversible releasing process as claimed. Id. Appellant contends
that Hofmann changes between frozen and liquid states. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Hofmann discloses that ammonia
is produced from the aqueous urea solution. Ans. 2. The Examiner also
relies on a passage of Hofmann as teaching that the aqueous urea solution
may freeze. Id. The Examiner finds that Hofmann teaches that the urea
solution in intermediate container 14 can be thawed by electric heater 38.
Id. (citing Hofmann, col. 8, 11. 1-50).
In reply, Appellant reiterates that Hofmann does not teach releasing a
urea solution to a gaseous form. Reply Br. 3. Appellant directs our attention
to col. 8, lines 40 through 44, of Hofmann as teaching that overheating of the
urea solution is avoided in tank 6 and intermediate container 14 to avoid
hydrolysis of the urea solution to form ammonia in such containers. Reply
Br. 3, Hofmann, col. 8, 1. 44 ("hydrolysis is undesirable").
Appellant's Specification provides that:
4
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
If now, in the nth cycle, the buffer reservoir 15 has emptied
enough that it reaches the limit charge 3 1, recharging of the
buffer reservoir 15 with ammonia from the storage container 23
is necessary. This is done in that when the limit charge 31 is
reached, the heater 17 of the buffer reservoir is shut off. A
short time before that, the heater 27 of the storage container 23
is activated, since the storage container 23 requires a certain
amount of time until it is ready for operation. As a result of the
shutoff of the heater 1 7 of the buffer reservoir 15 after the limit
charge is reached, the buffer reservoir 15 cools down, while at
the same time the temperature of the storage container 23 rises.
The result is an overpressure of the ammonia in the storage
container 23, as a result of which gaseous ammonia flows from
the storage container 23 through the check valve 29 into the
buffer reservoir 15. There, because of the reversibility of the
storage operation and the decrease in temperature of the buffer
reservoir 15, it is stored in the storage material. This process
can also continue after the shutoff of the vehicle, that is, after
the end of the nth cycle, until the buff er reservoir 15 has again
reached the initial charge of 1.0. After that, in the n+ 1th cycle,
the method already described in conjunction with the first cycle
begins all over again.
Spec. i-f 39 (emphasis added). The foregoing disclosure informs our
understanding of the language in claim 14 directed to the reducing agent
being released in gaseous form from the storage substance by the action of
temperature in a releasing process that is reversible. Claims App.
Hofmann is directed to an SCR method where liquid urea is
introduced into an exhaust gas. Hofmann, col. 2, 11. 33-51.
The urea solution 4 is contained initially in a container 6 having
a venting device 8. The urea solution 4 can be fed through the
use of a feed pump 18 through a supply line 12 to an outlet
opening 22 leading into the exhaust-gas line 42.
Id. col. 6, 11. 4--8; see also col. 8, 11. 9-11 ("There the aqueous urea
solution 4 is finely sprayed into the exhaust gas 5 which flows into the
5
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
exhaust-gas line 42 of the internal-combustion engine"). Hofmann is
concerned with preventing damage from temperatures below the freezing
point of the liquid. Id. col. 2, 11. 3-10. Hofmann alleviates the problem of
frozen liquid in the supply line between reservoir and the exhaust pipe by
using pressurized gas to drain the supply line. Id. col. 2, 11. 33---63; col. 3,
11. 8-50. Hofmann also uses a heater to liquefy a starting volume of the
liquid from a solid state. Id. col. 4, 11. 15-29.
[T]he device, which is preferably a component of an exhaust-
gas purification system of a utility motor vehicle having an
internal-combustion engine, in particular an internal-
combustion engine operated with an excess of air, can be
particularly rapidly put into operation again even after
prolonged shutdown times of the utility motor vehicle at outside
temperatures below the freezing point of the liquid, because
only a small heating power is needed to liquefy the starting
volume even in the case of frozen liquid.
Hofmann, col. 4, 11. 40-49; see also. col. 7, 1. 63 - col. 8, 1. 23. Hofmann
uses temperature sensors to avoid overheating, and thereby vaporizing, the
liquid contained in the reservoir. Id. col. 5, 11. 7-21.
[O]verheating of the urea solution 4 is avoided both in the
tank 6 and in the intermediate container 14, which would
otherwise already result in hydrolysis of the urea solution to
form ammonia in the containers. However, the hydrolysis is
undesirable.
Id. col. 8, 11. 40-44.
To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
inherently disclose each claim limitation. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Anticipation also
requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all the elements
"arranged as in the claim." Finisar Corp. v. Direct Group, Inc., 523 F.3d
6
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, claim 14 requires that the reversible
releasing process takes place with regard to a reducing agent that is released
in "gaseous form" from the storage substance. Claims App. The
Examiner's finding that this requirement is met by urea that is thawed into a
liquid state from a frozen state constitutes reversible error.
We do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 14, neither do we
sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16, 22, and 23 that depend therefrom.
Claims 24-30 and 33-35
Claim 24 is a method claim that is substantially similar in scope to
claim 1. Claims App. As with claim 14, claim 24 contains a limitation
directed to releasing a reducing agent from the storage substance in gaseous
form in a process that is reversible. Id.
The issue raised by the Examiner's rejection and Appellant's traverse
thereof is essentially the same as that discussed above with regard to the
rejection of claim 14. Final Action 3--4, Appeal Br. 8, Ans. 3. For
essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 14, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 24, neither do we sustain the
rejection of claims 25-30 and 33-35 that depend therefrom.
Unpatentability of Claims 17-21
over Hofmann and Marko
Claims 17-21 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 14. Claims App. The rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that we identified with respect to the rejection of claim 14, which
infirmity is not cured by reliance on Marko as a secondary reference.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the unpatentability rejection of
claims 17-21.
7
Appeal2014-009291
Application 13/000,941
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14--30 and 33-35 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8