Ex Parte KLEINKNECHT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

13872548 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/872,548 04/29/2013
24972 7590 07/27/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Horst KLEINKNECHT
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.
BOSC.P8880US.A 8062
EXAMINER
LEE, BRANDON DONGPA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST KLEINKNECHT
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated August 31, 2015
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Robert Bosch GmbH, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosure is directed to a procedure for operating a
reagent metering valve. Spec. 1: 15-17. 2 Claims 1, 7, 10, and 11 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating a metering valve located in an
exhaust-gas region downstream of a combustion chamber of an
internal combustion engine, the metering valve being realized
as a solenoid valve which is actuated by an electromagnet
which interacts with an armature which is directly connected to
a valve needle, the method comprising:
energizing the electromagnet with a pulse-width
modulated metering signal;
controlling the metering valve located in the exhaust-gas
region to meter a reagent or a precursor of a reagent into the
exhaust-gas region of the internal combustion engine with the
pulse-width modulated metering signal; and
limiting an opening duration of the metering valve to a
minimum opening duration, for which the metering valve is
opened completely and which is fixed such that a correct spray
mist is always produced during the metering;
wherein no droplets are produced which partially remain
on the metering valve;
wherein the minimum opening duration is fixed such that
the reagent or the precursor of the reagent would no longer
spray as the correct spray mist below the minimum opening
duration but instead would produce droplets which partially
remain on the metering valve or would enter into the exhaust-
gas region as an incomplete spray mist with the droplets; and
wherein the minimum opening duration begins when the
metering valve is completely open after a metering valve cut-in
time.
2 Our citations to the Specification use the line numbers as provided therein,
which appear to include the page headers.
2
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
REJECTI0NS 3
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Rudelt (US 2005/0210869 Al, published Sept. 29, 2005),
Xu (US 6,766,788 B2, issued July 27, 2004), Orzel (US 5,224,462, issued
July 6, 1993), and Groff (US 1,761,122, issued June 3, 1930).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, Groff, and Khair (US 2003/0140621
Al, published July 31, 2003).
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, Groff, and Linder (US 4,653,447,
issued Mar. 31, 1987).
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, and Groff
Claims 1-3 and 8-11
Appellant presents arguments for claim 1-3 and 8-11 collectively.
Appeal Br. 5-7. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 2, 3,
and 8-11 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Rudelt discloses a method for operating a
solenoid metering valve including controlling the valve to meter a reagent or
a precursor to a reagent into the exhaust-gas region downstream of a
combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. Final Act. 6.
3 A rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (see Final Act. 5) has
been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
The Examiner finds that Xu teaches energizing the electromagnet of a
solenoid valve with a pulse-width modulated metering signal, controlling the
metering valve with the metering signal, and limiting an opening duration of
the metering valve to a minimum opening duration that begins when the
valve is fully open after a cut-in time. Id. at 7, 9. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
these steps of Xu into Rudelt' s method "to reduce energy consumption and
prevent circuit damage." Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner finds that Orzel discloses metering fuel injection via a
pulse-width modulated metering signal having pulse widths greater than a
predetermined minimum pulse width. Id. at 8. The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
this step into Rudelt' s method, as modified by Xu, "to prevent degradation
of fuel atomization." Id. at 8-9. The Examiner further finds that Orzel
"implicitly teaches" that fuel injectors, such as those disclosed by Rudelt and
Xu, inject fuel in a correct spray mist. Id. at 9. Thus, the Examiner
determines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the injector of Rudelt, as modified by Xu, would inject correct spray mist.
Id.
The Examiner finds that Groff discloses that proper atomization of
fuel prevents droplets that partially remain on the metering valve. Id. Thus,
the Examiner reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
metering of Rudelt's valve, as modified by Xu and Orzel, would be done so
as to prevent droplets that partially remain on the metering valve. Id.
at 9-10.
4
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
Appellant traverses, first criticizing the Examiner's reliance on Orzel
and Groff to teach operation of a metering valve to have a minimum opening
duration such that a correct spray mist is produced and droplets are avoided.
Appeal Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellant argues that "Orzel does not define
what degradation means for fuel atomization" and Groff avoids valve
dribble "through a mechanical cushioning means, not through the fixing of a
minimum open duration." Id. Appellant also argues that "it is not at all
clear that the 'valve dribble' effect discussed in ... Groff involves 'droplets
which partially remain on the metering valve' because of an opening
duration time for the valve that falls below a minimum needed to avoid the
droplet formations recited in the claims." Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, which attack the
references individually rather than addressing their collective teachings. See
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
("Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references."). As noted above, the Examiner relies on Orzel to teach
metering of an injection valve with an opening duration greater than a
predetermined amount duration to prevent degraded atomization (Final Act.
8-9), and on Groff to teach proper atomization includes preventing the
formation of droplets (id. at 9-10). These findings are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Orzel, 3:36-45 (explaining that "fuel
atomization may be degraded at actuating pulse widths less than the
minimum pulse width"); Groff, 2:89-97 (explaining that improper
atomization involves "improper passage of the fuel through the spray
nozzles" and "is better known as 'valve dribble"'); see also Final Act. 8-9
5
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
( citing same). Appellant's arguments fail to consider the combined
teachings of the cited references as set forth by the Examiner, and, thus, fail
to apprise us of error. We additionally note that by acknowledging that "it
may be the case that Orzel did regard as degraded a fuel atomization that
included some droplets" (see Appeal Br. 6), Appellant appears to
acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate Orzel
seeks to avoid the formation of droplets during injection. To the extent that
Appellant intimates a difference between "droplets" and "dribble," we are
not persuaded of error, as Appellant does not explain how these terms are
different.
Appellant next asserts that "[t]he claims recite that the metering valve
is realized [as] a solenoid valve which is actuated by an electromagnet which
interacts with an armature which is directly connected to a valve needle,"
and argues that the Examiner has not shown where Rudelt discloses this
preamble recitation. Id. at 7. The Examiner responds that Xu teaches such a
solenoid valve. Ans. 4. Appellant does not contest this finding (see Reply
Br. 1-3), and, thus, does not apprise us of error. In fact, Appellant
acknowledges that Xu discloses a solenoid valve. See Appeal Br. 5---6.
Finally, Appellant argues that Rudelt's "injector 2 injects fuel into the
exhaust line 4," and "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not regard
fuel as a reagent or [its] precursor because a reagent, as explained in the
present specification, would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
the art as a substance containing urea." Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Notably, Appellant
does not direct us to, nor do we find, any indication in the Specification that
the term "reagent" was used outside of its ordinary meaning. If a divergent
6
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
specialized usage were intended, such a meaning was required to be clearly
explained in the Specification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[A] patentee may choose to be his own
lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning,
as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent
specification or file history."). To the contrary, the Specification refers to
"reagent" in a broad manner, only indicating that "a water/urea solution" is
an example of a reagent. See, e.g., Spec. 9:29--30 ("the reagent,/or example
the preliminary stage [sic] the urea/water solution" ( emphasis added)).
Furthermore, we note that a dictionary definition of "reagent" includes "a
substance used ( as in detecting or measuring a component, in preparing a
product, or in developing photographs) because of its chemical or biological
activity." See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reagent (last
visited July 19, 2018). Appellant's argument fails to apprise us why
Rudelt's use of fuel (see Rudelt ,r 22) fails to qualify as a substance used for
its chemical activity.
To the extent Appellant asserts new arguments in the Reply Brief that
were not included in the Appeal Brief (see, e.g., Reply Br. 2-3 (presenting
an argument regarding the omission of "a safety margin")) and are not
responsive to a new argument raised in the Answer, such arguments are
untimely and will not be considered, in that Appellant fails to make a good
faith showing why they could not have been timely presented in the Appeal
Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3 and 8-11 as being unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, and
Groff.
7
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
Claim 7
Independent claim 7 recites a "metering valve system" including
recitations similar to those of claim 1. Claims App. 2. Appellant addresses
claim 7 separately, repeating the argument that "[t]he claim is directed to a
reagent that includes urea/water." Appeal Br. 7. Like claim 1, claim 7
broadly recites "a reagent or a precursor to a reagent," but does not require
urea or water. Claims App. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
argument for the reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claim 1.
Additionally, as claim 7 is an apparatus claim, rather than a method claim,
the recited "to meter a reagent or a precursor of a reagent" is a functional
recitation, and Appellant does not show that the combination of references
fails to disclose or suggest the recited reagent or precursor, or how Rudelt's
metering valve, as modified, would not be "adapted" to perform the claimed
functional recitation.
Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 7 as being unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, and Groff.
Rejections Based on Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, Groff, and One of Khair and Linder
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the rejections of
dependent claims 4---6, instead relying on the arguments presented for claim
1. Appeal Br. 5-7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of:
claim 4 as being unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, Groff, and
Khair, and
claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Rudelt, Xu, Orzel, Groff,
and Linder.
8
Appeal2017-003418
Application 13/872,548
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9