Ex Parte Keegan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2012

10801740 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2012)

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.
10/801,740 03/16/2004 Kevin R. Keegan 89190.115603/DP-310836 1846
7590 04/27/2012
Jimmy L. Funke, Esq.
Delphi Technologies, Inc.
Mail Code 480410202
P.O. Box 5052
Troy, MI 48007
EXAMINER
AKRAM, IMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEVIN R. KEEGAN, AMANDA M. WEISS,
and CHARLES R. DEJOHN
__________

Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a catalytic hydrocarbon
reformer and methods of operating catalytic hydrocarbon reformers that
include a strategy and algorithm for calculating a reformer combustor burn
Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

2
time for heating the reformer catalyst to a minimum reforming temperature
(Spec. 1:8-11; Claims Appendix, claims 1, 6, 10 and 15).
Claims 1 and 6 are reproduced below:
1. A method for pre-heating a hydrocarbon catalytic reformer from a
starting temperature to a minimum reforming temperature utilizing an
electronic control module, comprising the steps of:

a) selecting a fuel type to be combusted;

b) determining the latent heat of combustion of said selected fuel
type;

c) selecting a flow rate of said combustion fuel;

d) determining the heat capacity of a catalyst to be heated in said
catalytic reformer;

e) determining a mass of said reformer to be heated;

f) determining said starting temperature of said catalyst in said
catalytic reformer;

g) utilizing a software construct to produce said fuel combustion
time interval, wherein said construct utilizes said latent heat of
combustion, said selected combustion fuel flow rate, said heat
capacity of said catalyst, said mass to be heated, and said
starting temperature; and

h) pre-heating said hydrocarbon catalytic reformer using a
combustor for said fuel combustion time interval so that said
hydrocarbon catalytic reformer reaches said minimum
reforming temperature.

6. A catalytic hydrocarbon reformer for making reformate, comprising:

an electronic control module for controlling the flow of hydrocarbon
fuel and air into said reformer,

Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

3
wherein said electronic control module is programmed with a
software construct for determining a fuel combustion time interval for pre-
heating said hydrocarbon catalytic reformer to a minimum reforming
temperature, wherein said fuel combustion time interval is at least dependent
on a starting temperature of a catalyst in said reformer.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dalla Betta (US 2003/0101713 A1, pub. Jun. 04,
2003) in view of Yamaoka (US 2002/0071974 A1, pub. Jun. 13,
2002).
2. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamaoka.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamaoka in view of Della Betta.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamaoka in view of Grieve (US 2002/0150532 A1, pub. Oct. 17,
2002).

REJECTIONS (1), (3), and (4)
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Yamaoka teaches
measuring and calculating times necessary for the catalyst to reach its
activating temperature such that Yamaoka’s teachings would have rendered
obvious a reformer comprising an electronic control module programmed
with a “software construct for determining a fuel combustion time interval
for pre-heating said hydrocarbon catalytic reformer to a minimum reforming
temperature, wherein the fuel combustion time interval is at least dependent
Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

4
on a starting temperature of a catalyst in said reformer” as recited in claim
6? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner’s findings regarding Yamaoka are presented on pages 5
to 6 and 7 to 8 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Yamaoka teaches a
quantity determinator and target temperature setting means for the raw fuel
supplied to the combustor and that time is variable (Ans. 5). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use a
software construct “to measure the time necessary for heating the catalyst to
a reformer temperature to compensate for the time necessary for the process
to occur given the quantity of fuel used, the target temperature desired, and
the activation temperature of the catalyst” (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue that Yamaoka fails to teach a software construct that
determines the fuel combustion time interval based, at least, on the initial
temperature of the reformer (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that
temperature setting means and quantity determinator are components that
measure and control the raw fuel temperature and amount and these
components do not determine a combustion time interval (App. Br. 12).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s stated conclusion is based on
“measuring” the time necessary for heating the catalyst to a reformer
temperature, which is not what is required by the claim (App. Br. 10).
Appellants contend that claim 6 requires an electronic control module that
determines the combustion time interval using a software construct (App.
Br. 11).
Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

5
Claim 6 recites an electronic control module that is programmed with
a software construct that determines the fuel combustion time interval based,
at least, upon the initial temperature of the reformer. The Specification
describes the software construct as including an algorithm that calculates
(i.e., determines) the fuel combustion time interval based on various
parameters that include the initial temperature of the reformer (Spec. 4-6).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s conclusion based on “measuring” the
time for the reformer to reach a minimum temperature does not take into
account the subject matter of the claimed invention that requires a software
construct that “determines” (i.e., calculates) the fuel combustion time
interval. Apparently recognizing this deficiency, the Examiner in the
Response to Arguments section of the Answer finds that Yamaoka teaches
measuring and calculating times necessary for fuel to reach its desired
temperature and the catalyst to reach its activating temperature (Yamaoka,
para. [0008]).
However, paragraph 8 of Yamaoka does not explicitly teach
calculating times for the reformer catalyst to reach its desired temperature as
argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 3-4). The Examiner has not explained or
provided reasoning as to how, why, or what portion of Yamaoka’s paragraph
8 disclosure teaches calculating the fuel combustion time interval. The
Examiner has not dispensed with the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness.
On this record the preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’
argument that the subject matter of claim 6 would not have been obvious
over Yamaoka.
Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

6
The § 103 rejections of claims 8 and 9 are based on Yamaoka as the
primary reference and these rejections fail for the same reasons discussed
supra.

REJECTION (2)
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Dalla Betta
teaches measuring a “fuel combustion time interval” as required by claims 1,
10, and 15? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s stated rejection is based on Dalla Betta teaching a
fuel combustion time interval (Ans. 3). Specifically, the Examiner cites
paragraph 101 of Dalla Betta as teaching the “length of time for fuel
processing,” and the Examiner finds that the only claim limitations missing
from Dalla Betta are the “details of a software construct [claims 1, 10, 15], a
computing system [claim 10], or computer readable medium [claim 15]”
(Ans. 3). The Examiner relies on Yamaoka to teach using a software
construct (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants argue that Dalla Betta and Yamaoka do not teach using a
starting temperature of the catalytic reformer in a software construct to
produce a combustion time interval (App. Br. 18). Appellants further argue
that the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 101 of Dalla Betta to teach a
length of time for fuel processing in rich mode does not teach a fuel
combustion time interval to preheat the catalyst (App. Br. 19).
Appeal 2010-007569
Application 10/801,740

7
We have reviewed the Dalla Betta disclosure and we find ourselves in
agreement with Appellants. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained
how the paragraph 101 Dalla Betta disclosure teaches the disputed fuel
combustion time interval for preheating the reformer catalyst limitation. The
paragraph 101 disclosure states that the “length of time the fuel processor is
operated in the rich mode” is a variable that can be determined. However,
we agree with Appellants that this disclosure refers to the operation of the
fuel processor at normal operation conditions. The Examiner has not
directed us to any citation or provided any reasoning as to why this
disclosure should be interpreted as referring to the fuel combustion time
interval for preheating the reformer as required by the claims. We note the
Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ argument challenging the finding
regarding Dalla Betta’s paragraph 101 disclosure (Ans. 8-10).
For these reasons and on this record, we find that the preponderance
of the evidence favors the Appellants’ position that the claims would have
been nonobvious over Dalla Betta and Yamaoka.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Dalla Betta in view of
Yamaoka.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

ssl