Ex Parte Kopp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12552844 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
12/552,844 09/02/2009 Andre Kopp 8369.133.US0000 5393
62008 7590 01/03/2017
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LARGI, MATTHEW THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
patent @ maierandmaier. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE KOPP
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andre Kopp (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20—26.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Audi AG is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1—19 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 20 and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 20,
reproduced below, is illustrative.
20. A method of desulfurizing an NOx catalytic converter of
a motor vehicle, comprising:
detachably connecting a fluid line of an apparatus
independent of said vehicle to a portion of the exhaust gas line
of said vehicle, between the engine and catalytic converter
thereof, while said vehicle is located a selected site;
operating said engine to produce an exhaust gas flow; and
introducing a metered amount of sulfur reducing agent
into said exhaust gas line, through said fluid line sufficient to
react with sulfur contained in said converter.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 20—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
overNakatani (US 6,823,664 B2, issued Nov. 30, 2004) and Teuber-Emst
(US 5,394,692, issued Mar. 7, 1995).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 20—26 together as a
group. Appeal Br. 4—5. Accordingly, we select claim 20 to decide the
appeal as to this rejection, with claims 21—26 standing or falling with claim
20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Nakatani discloses the “operating” and
“introducing” steps recited in claim 20, but does not disclose the step of
“detachably connecting a fluid line . . . while said vehicle is located at a
selected site.” Final Act. 2—3 (citing Nakatani, col. 2,11. 39-44, 58—63, col.
15,11. 30—36). The Examiner finds that Teuber-Emst discloses a
2
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
regeneration method that includes detachably connecting a fluid line of an
apparatus independent of the vehicle, between the engine and catalytic
converter. Id. at 3 (citing Teuber-Emst, col. 1,11. 31—37, col. 2,11. 61—66).
The Examiner provides reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify Nakatani’s method in view of Teuber-Emst’s
teaching to use an external regeneration unit. Final Act. 3.
Appellant asserts that “[t]he claimed invention provides for a precise
reducing agent in the precise amount and temperature to effectively and
economically provide the required desulfurization.” Appeal Br. 4.
According to Appellant, Nakatani’s method of regenerating nitrogen oxide
in a storage catalyst is not capable of providing targeted desulfurization of
the catalyst. Id. Additionally, Appellant contends that Teuber-Emst only
teaches injecting a heated gas into a soot filter of a diesel engine to bum
collected soot particles, but does not disclose, teach, or suggest “introducing
a reducing agent from a separate source into a catalyst for the purpose of
more effectively and precisely desulfurizing such catalyst.” Id.
The Examiner answers that claim 20 does not recite “a precise
reducing agent in the precise amount and temperature to effectively and
economically provide the required desulfurization,” as Appellant argues.
Ans. 2; Appeal Br. 4. We note that claim 20 does not recite any limitation
for the reducing agent temperature, and, in regard to the amount of reducing
agent introduced into the exhaust gas line, only requires it to be “sufficient
to react with sulfur.” Hence, Appellant’s contention is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim 20. Limitations that do not appear in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982).
3
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
The Examiner also explains that Nakatani discloses onboard sulfur
regeneration of an emission abatement device (Ans. 4), and Teuber-Emst is
relied upon “merely for the teaching of regeneration of an emission
abatement device via an external and detachable connection and unit through
injection of a fluid into the exhaust system” (id. at 5). Figure 6 of Nakatani
depicts supplying a reductant to branch passages 48, 52 upstream of filters
56, 58 supporting NOx absorbent 12a, 12b. Nakatani, col. 15,11. 23—36, 55—
58. The reductant is used during S (sulfur) poisoning regeneration control of
the NOx absorbent. Id. at col. 15,11. 26—28. The Examiner determines that
Nakatani teaches use of precise reductant addition and temperature control
for sulfur regeneration. Ans. 2 (citing Nakatani, col. 10,11. 20-53, col. 15,
11. 30—36, 45 46). The Examiner explains that Teuber-Emst discloses a
regeneration method for an emission abatement device via an external
regeneration device that is detachably connected to the emission abatement
device. Id. at 4 (citing Teuber-Emst, col. 1,11. 31—37). Figure 1 of Teuber-
Emst shows external regeneration unit 2 including hot gas hose 3 attached to
filter 1, which is attached to a motor vehicle. See also Teuber-Emst, col. 2,
11. 55—66. The Examiner’s proposed combination of Nakatani and Teuber-
Emst would result in a method providing targeted desulfurization of the
exhaust emission abatement device via an external regeneration device and
detachable connection thereto. Ans. 5.
Appellant replies by questioning how and why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated by Teuber-Emst to provide the
regeneration means of Nakatani in a separate, connectable device of Teuber-
Emst when Nakatani’s regeneration means “would appear to be more
suitably insertable, functional and economical in installation and operation.”
4
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
Reply Br. 2. Additionally, Appellant questions how and why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Nakatani to provide
its regeneration means “into a separate, connectable device intended to
generate a flow of hot air into the filter of a diesel engine.” Id.
These contentions do not, however, address persuasively the
Examiner’s stated rejection. The Examiner does not indicate that the
rejection provides Nakatani’s regeneration means in Teuber-Emst’s external
regeneration unit 2. Rather, the Examiner relies on Teuber-Emst for
teaching regenerating an emission abatement device by attaching a fluid line
of a regeneration device that is located external to, and independent from,
the vehicle, and injecting a fluid into an exhaust system to react with sulfur,
which would be contained in Nakatani’s catalytic converter. Ans. 4.
Appellant acknowledges that Teuber-Emst’s regeneration device is used to
remove accumulated sulfur particles deposited in the filter. Reply Br. 2.
This sulfur removal function would be a predictable result of the Examiner’s
combination. Appellant also does not address the Examiner’s articulated
reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to modify Nakatani’s method to have an external regeneration unit. Final
Act. 3; see Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, Appellant does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning in support of the rejection.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 20, and claims 21—26, which
fall with claim 20, as unpatentable over Nakatani and Teuber-Emst.
5
Appeal 2015-002566
Application 12/552,844
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20—26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6