Ex Parte Lowe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2010

11022692 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. LOWE, WADE J. ROBEL, MAARTEN VERKIEL,
and JAMES J. DRISCOLL
____________

Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: January 25, 2010
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael D. Lowe et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the second non-final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-31, and 39-45.
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

2
Appellants canceled claims 4 and 32-38. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
The Invention
The claimed invention is to techniques for on-vehicle filter
desulfation. Spec. 1, para. [02].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of removing sulfur from a filter system
of an engine, comprising:
continuously passing an exhaust flow through a
desulfation leg of the filter system during desulfation;
sensing at least one characteristic of the exhaust flow;
and
modifying a flow rate of the exhaust flow during
desulfation in response to the sensing such that a desired
desulfation temperature is held substantially constant.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-3, 5-31, 39-41, and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Laroo (US 6,779,339 B1, issued Aug. 24, 2004).
Claims 10 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Surnilla (US 6,189,316 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001).

Contentions
Anticipation based on Laroo
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-13, 15-19, 20-27, and 29-31
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the claimed
subject matter of modifying the exhaust flow rate during desulfation in
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

3
response to sensing a characteristic of the exhaust flow such that the desired
desulfation temperature is held substantially constant, as called for in claims
1 and 20, is satisfied by Laroo. Appellants further contend that the
Examiner erred in finding that the claimed subject matter of holding the
desired temperature of an NOx absorber1 substantially constant during
desulfation, as called for in claim 10, is satisfied by Laroo.
Appellants contend that Laroo “teaches adjusting the engine exhaust
flow only when the NOx adsorber temperature decreases below the ‘optimal’
desulfating temperature.” App. Br. 13. Appellants further contend that
Laroo just teaches maintaining the temperature of desulfation above a
certain threshold valve, but the temperature may vary above the threshold.
App. Br. 13, 14, 17, and 19-21.
Appellants additionally contend that the Examiner erred in finding
that the temperature range mentioned in step F of Laroo (Laroo, col. 5, ll.
29-51) is also used for step G of Laroo (Laroo, col. 5, ll. 52-67). Appellants
urge that Laroo does not disclose or suggest that, in step G, the temperature
of the NOx adsorber catalyst is brought within the range of 500-750° C as
the Examiner asserts. Reply Br. 2. Appellants urge that the Examiner erred
in finding that the adsorber temperature being held within a range spanning
250° C corresponds to holding a temperature substantially constant. Id.
Appellants contend that Laroo merely teaches increasing the temperature of
the NOx adsorber catalyst up to some temperature between 500-750° C in
step F and does not disclose or suggest holding the temperature within this

1 The claimed invention requires an absorber. Laroo discloses an adsorber.
Absorption is a chemical process. Adsorption is a thermodynamic property.
Appellants do not contend that, in this art, there could be a novel difference
between an absorber and an adsorber.
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

4
range in step F or step G as found by the Examiner. Reply Br. 3. Appellants
urge that in step G, Laroo does not stop raising the temperature of the NOx
adsorber as asserted by the Examiner. Id. Appellants contend that Laroo
still increases the temperature of the NOx adsorber by allowing the catalytic
diesel particulate filter (CDPF) to transfer heat to the NOx adsorber in step
G. Id.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 14, and 43
Appellants contend, arguendo, Laroo discloses that the fuel injection
is modified to hold the lambda value2 substantially constant, the claimed
subject matter of the flow rate of fuel being modified to hold the desulfating
temperature substantially constant is not satisfied by Laroo. App. Br. 22.
Appellants urge, because many factors may be adjusted to hold the
desulfation temperature substantially constant, that maintaining a desired
lambda value does not necessarily result in holding a desired desulfation
temperature substantially constant. Id. at 22-23.
Claim 28 that depends from claim 27
Appellants contend that Laroo discloses each exhaust leg of the
exhaust system may operate in adsorption mode or denitration mode when
not being operated in desulfation mode. App. Br. 23. Appellants contend
that in adsorption mode, the flow rate of the exhaust is not restricted and
thus Laroo does not anticipate the claimed subject matter of restricting the
flow rate of the exhaust flow through the desulfation leg. Id. Appellants
further contend that Laroo discloses fuel is injected into the exhaust path
during the denitration mode and thus Laroo cannot anticipate the claimed

2 A lambda (λ) value is the air-to-fuel ratio within the exhaust. A value less
than 1 indicates a rich fuel environment within the exhaust.
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

5
subject matter of stopping the injection of reductant into the exhaust flow.
Appellants urge that the Examiner erred in finding that stopping the injection
of fuel in one leg during denitration and restricting the exhaust flow rate in
the other leg during adsorption “controllably cool[s] the NOx adsorber after
desulfation.” App. Br. 24. According to Appellants, these two actions occur
in separate exhaust legs of Laroo after desulfation occurs in one of the legs
and thus do not anticipate the claimed subject matter of controllably cooling
the NOx absorber of the desulfation leg after desulfation. Appellants
contend that controllably cooling the NOx absorber includes stopping an
injection of reductant into the exhaust flow and restricting the flow rate of
the exhaust through the desulfation leg. App. Br. 24.
Claims 39, 40, and 44
Appellants contend that Laroo fails to anticipate the claimed subject
matter of cooling the NOx adsorber to hold the desired desulfation
temperature substantially constant because Laroo discloses heating the NOx
adsorbers, not cooling them. App. Br. 24-26. Appellants contend that Laroo
discloses when it is operating in desulfation mode, the temperatures in the
desulfation leg increase even when the flow is restricted to less than five
percent of the total flow because fuel is supplied to each CDPF. Id.
Claims 41 and 45
Appellants contend that Laroo’s disclosure of initiating desulfation
automatically on a periodic basis and that the timing of desulfation initiation
may depend on a characteristic of the NOx adsorber, viz., storage capacity,
does not anticipate the claimed subject matter of determining whether to
initiate desulfation based on a particular sensed characteristic. App. Br. 27.

Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

6
Anticipation based on Surnilla
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding Surnilla
anticipates the process step of “injecting a reductant into an exhaust flow
upstream of the NOx absorber” because Surnilla discloses that fuel and air
are injected into the cylinders, and as such, the fuel is not injected into an
exhaust flow. Reply Br. 4-5; see also App. Br. 29-30.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
Issues
In light of the Appellants’ contentions, the issues before us are as
follows:
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Laroo
anticipates:
(1) modifying the exhaust flow rate during desulfation in response
to sensing an exhaust flow characteristic such that the desired
desulfation temperature is held substantially constant?
(2) holding the desired temperature of an NOx absorber
substantially constant during desulfation?
(3) modifying a flow rate of a reductant in response to sensing an
exhaust flow characteristic in order to hold the desired
desulfation temperature substantially constant?
(4) controllably cooling an NOx absorber of the desulfation leg
after desulfation, in particular, by stopping the injection of
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

7
reductant into the exhaust flow and restricting the flow rate of
the exhaust flow through the desulfation leg?
(5) modifying the exhaust flow rate to cool the desulfation leg in
order to hold the desired desulfation temperature substantially
constant?
(6) holding the desired temperature substantially constant during
desulfation by cooling the desulfation leg?
(7) determining whether to initiate desulfation based on sensing
either a characteristic of the engine or engine filter system?
Additionally, have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Surnilla anticipates:
(8) the process step of injecting a reductant into an exhaust flow
upstream of the NOx absorber?
Pertinent Facts
1. Laroo discloses a method and apparatus for desulfating NOx adsorber
catalysts in a multi-exhaust path flow system utilizing in-exhaust fuel
injection and exhaust flow bypass. Col. 1, ll. 55-58. The process
minimizes temperature extremes and maintains precise temperatures
on the NOx adsorber for desulfation. Col. 1, ll. 58-60. The multi-
exhaust path flow system includes a perpendicular exhaust path loop
that allows a controlled addition of exhaust from the adsorbing leg to
the desulfation leg. Col. 2, ll. 20-24. Laroo discloses that the NOx
adsorber can be heated to the desired temperature by permitting a
small fraction of exhaust flow through the desulfation leg in
conjunction with a perpendicular exhaust bypass loop flow, or
momentarily opening the desulfation leg to the full exhaust flow. Col.
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

8
2, ll. 16-18 and 39-41. Once the NOx adsorber is heated to the desired
temperature, a reductant is added to facilitate sulfur release. Col. 2, ll.
42-44.
2. Laroo discloses that the NOx adsorber is maintained at the desired
desulfation temperature by controlling the perpendicular exhaust
bypass loop flow. Col. 2, ll. 44-47.
3. Laroo discloses that both the NOx adsorber and the catalytic diesel
particulate filter (CDPF) have temperature sensors that send signals to
the controller. Based on the signals sent by the sensors, the controller
controls the fuel (reductant) injectors, exhaust flow valves, and
exhaust bypass control valve. Col. 4, ll. 7-32.
4. Laroo discloses that the desulfation for the NOx adsorber in each flow
path (leg) is initiated periodically and automatically based on a
threshold of loss in the storage capacity of the NOx adsorber. Col. 5,
ll. 11-14.
5. Laroo discloses that the exhaust flow is restricted for an exhaust flow
path (leg) undergoing desulfation. At this time, fuel (reductant) is
sprayed into the exhaust flow passing over the catalytic diesel
particulate filter (CDPF) and the perpendicular bypass valve is
opened. The introduction of reductant and bypass exhaust flow
continues until the CDPF reaches a first predetermined temperature.
When the CDPF reaches that temperature, reductant and exhaust flow
are discontinued. Col. 5, ll. 15-23.
6. Laroo discloses that, for the exhaust path that is undergoing
desulfation, when the catalytic diesel particulate filter (CDPF) reaches
the first predetermined temperature, heat is transferred, by convection,
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

9
from the CDPF to the NOx adsorber in order to bring the NOx
adsorber catalyst up to the desired desulfating temperature. The
desired desulfating temperature for a given NOx adsorber is based on
the specific NOx adsorber catalyst formulation. Laroo discloses that
the desired desulfation temperature ranges between 500-750° C. Col.
5, ll. 29-36.
7. Laroo discloses that in order to reach the desired desulfation
temperature based on the catalyst’s formulation, one of two process
occur. Either the perpendicular bypass valve is opened to control
exhaust flow into the leg or full engine exhaust flow travels through
the leg. Col. 5, ll. 37-40.
8. Laroo discloses that another predetermined temperature set point is
used to close exhaust flow to the exhaust leg undergoing desulfation.
This temperature is based on the cooling effect of the exhaust flow on
the catalytic diesel particulate filter (CDPF). Col. 5, ll. 40-44.
9. Laroo discloses either when the catalytic diesel particulate filter
(CDPF) reaches a third predetermined temperature or when the NOx
adsorber reaches its second predetermined temperature, the exhaust
flow occurring within the leg undergoing desulfation ceases. Col. 5,
ll. 44-47.
10. Laroo discloses once the exhaust flow ceases, therefore, the NOx
adsorber is at the desired desulfation temperature, fuel (reductant) is
sprayed into the exhaust leg on to the catalytic diesel particulate filter
(CDPF) and the exhaust flow is returned to the desulfating exhaust
flow, about five percent of the full exhaust flow. The spraying of
reductant is controlled by monitoring the λ/NOx (lambda/NOx)
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

10
sensors. The spraying of reductant causes the sulfur to be released
from the NOx adsorber. Col. 5, ll. 52-60
11. Laroo discloses that if the temperature of the NOx adsorber catalyst
falls below the optimal desulfation temperature during sulfur release,
then the leg undergoing desulfation is again contacted with engine
exhaust flow to initiate an exotherm across the catalytic diesel
particulate filter (CDPF). As such, heat is again generated and
convectively transferred to the NOx adsorber to maintain the NOx
adsorber temperature. Col. 5, ll. 62-67.
12. Surnilla discloses operating certain cylinders in a rich condition and,
as such, these cylinders would produce exhaust gas with unburned
hydrocarbons. Surnilla, col. 2, ll. 59-60. Surnilla discloses that this
process is used to achieve the desired rich bias. This rich bias releases
the stored sulfur within the NOx trap when the trap is at the proper
desulfation temperature. Surnilla, col. 4, ll. 23-29.
Analysis
Issue (1)
Appellants’ contentions do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding that Laroo anticipates the claimed subject matter of modifying a flow
rate of the exhaust flow in an exhaust leg during desulfation in response to
sensing one characteristic of the exhaust flow, as called for in claim 1.
Laroo discloses a method and apparatus for desulfating NOx adsorbers in a
multi-path exhaust flow system. Fact 1. Laroo discloses that the NOx
adsorber undergoing desulfation is heated to a desired temperature by
controlling the exhaust flow through the exhaust leg either by permitting a
small amount of exhaust through the leg and over the CDPF or by
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

11
momentarily opening the leg to the full exhaust flow. Facts 1 and 7. Laroo
discloses that the desired temperature for desulfation of the NOx adsorber is
based on the catalyst formulation within the NOx adsorber. Fact 6. Laroo
discloses that the desired temperature for desulfation falls within the range
of 500-750° C. Fact 6. Thus, Laroo discloses that for a given catalyst
formulation within an NOx adsorber there is a desired temperature for
desulfation for that NOx adsorber that falls within the range of 500-750° C.
While the desired temperature for a given catalyst formulation will fall
within a range, the particular desired temperature is a temperature, and not a
range. Appellants’ argument that the NOx adsorber temperature discussed
for step F is not also used for step G, and that the NOx adsorber can vary
above the threshold, is not well founded. In both steps F and G, heat transfer
occurs until the desired, or optimal, desulfating temperature is reached. See
Facts 9 and 11.
Laroo discloses that the NOx adsorber is maintained at the desired
temperature for desulfation by controlling the perpendicular exhaust bypass
loop flow. Fact 2. Controlling the perpendicular exhaust bypass loop flow
is achieved by the controller controlling the exhaust valves based on signals
received from at least the temperature sensors. Fact 3. The temperature
sensors would either indirectly or directly sense the temperature of the
exhaust gas through the devices that the sensors are attached to.
Controlling the exhaust flow by manipulating exhaust valves for a leg
undergoing desulfation is modifying the exhaust flow rate of the exhaust
flow through the leg. Sensing the temperature of the exhaust flow is sensing
a characteristic of the exhaust flow. Maintaining a desulfation temperature
based on the catalyst formulation is holding a desired desulfation
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

12
temperature substantially constant. As such, the process step within claim 1
of modifying a flow rate of the exhaust flow during desulfation in response
to sensing an exhaust flow characteristic such that a desired desulfation
temperature is held substantially constant is satisfied by Laroo’s disclosure
for the reasons given supra.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 27, and 29-31.
As such, these claims fall with claim 1 for the reasons given supra.
Appellants’ contentions do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Laroo anticipates the function of modifying a flow rate of a portion
of exhaust flow from an engine with a valving mechanism, during
desulfation, in response to a sensed temperature, such that a desired
desulfation temperature is held substantially constant, as called for in claim
20. As discussed supra with claim 1, Laroo modifies the flow rate, by use of
exhaust valves, of exhaust gas passing through the exhaust leg undergoing
desulfation in order to maintain the NOx adsorber at the temperature needed
for desulfation based on the catalyst formulation of the NOx adsorber. As
such, the element within claim 20 of a valving mechanism that modifies the
flow rate of a portion of exhaust flow from the engine through the exhaust
leg, during desulfation, in response to a sensed temperature, such that a
desired desulfation temperature is held substantially constant, is satisfied by
Laroo’s disclosure for the reasons given supra.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 21-26. As such, these
claims fall with claim 20 for the same reasons.
Issue (2)
Appellants’ contentions do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Laroo anticipates the process step of holding the desired temperature
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

13
of a NOx absorber substantially constant during desulfation, as called for in
claim 10. As discussed supra with claim 1, Laroo’s disclosure describes
maintaining the desired temperature of a NOx adsorber at a particular
temperature for the catalyst formulation of the NOx adsorber. Maintaining
the temperature at a predetermined temperature based on the catalyst
formulation is holding the desired temperature substantially constant. Laroo
maintains the temperature at a temperature within the range of 500-750° C in
order for desulfation to occur within the NOx adsorber. As such, the process
step within claim 10 of holding the desired temperature of an NOx absorber
substantially constant during desulfation is satisfied by Laroo’s disclosure
for the reasons given supra.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 11-13 and 15-19. As such,
these claims fall with claim 10 for the same reasons.
Issue (3)
Appellants’ contentions demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Laroo anticipates the claimed subject matter of modifying the flow
rate of the reductant in response to sensing an exhaust flow characteristic to
hold the desired desulfation temperature substantially constant. Laroo
discloses controlling, and thus modifying, the reductant injection to maintain
the desired lambda value as monitored by the lambda/NOx sensors. Fact 10.
However, as Appellants argue, controlling the injection of reductant to
maintain a lambda value is not necessarily controlling the injection of
reductant to maintain the temperature of the NOx adsorber. Instead, Laroo
discloses that heat is convectively transferred from the CDPF to the NOx
adsorber by allowing exhaust flow to initiate an exotherm across the CDPF
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

14
to maintain the temperature of the NOx adsorber substantially constant. Fact
10.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding Laroo anticipates claims 3, 6, 7, 14, and 43.
Issue (4)
Appellants’ contentions demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Laroo anticipates the claimed subject matter of controllably cooling
the desulfation leg by stopping the injection of reductant and restricting the
exhaust flow. The Examiner’s finding that Laroo’s disclosure that the
system switches the flow paths and injecting reductant, and the Examiner’s
analysis that both legs of the exhaust have the desulfating process performed
on them (Ans. 15), is not enough to support a finding that Laroo explicitly
anticipates controlling the cooling of the NOx absorber by stopping the
injection of reductant and restricting the exhaust flow, as called for within
claim 28. Nor does it necessarily flow from Laroo’s disclosure that a
controlled cooling of the NOx adsorber includes the steps of stopping an
injection of reductant into the exhaust flow and restricting the flow rate of
the exhaust flow through the desulfating leg.
However, Laroo’s disclosure of switching the exhaust flow does
anticipate a controlled cooling of an NOx absorber as claimed after
desulfation because, if the NOx adsorber was maintained at the desulfation
temperature for an extended period of time, degradation would occur within
the NOx adsorber kept at such high temperature. See e.g., Laroo, col. 1, ll.
60-62 (Fact 1). As such, controllably cooling the NOx absorber is satisfied
by Laroo’s disclosure, but controllably cooling the NOx absorber by
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

15
stopping the injection of reductant and restricting the flow rate of the
exhaust is not satisfied by Laroo’s disclosure.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding Laroo anticipates claim 28. However, Appellants
have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding Laroo anticipates
claim 27.
Issues (5) and (6)
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
that Laroo anticipates modifying the exhaust flow rate to cool the desulfation
leg in order to hold the desired desulfation temperature substantially
constant, as called for in claims 39 and 44, or holding the desired
temperature substantially constant during desulfation by cooling the
desulfation leg, as called for in claim 40. As discussed supra, Laroo’s
disclosure describes holding the desired temperature substantially constant
by permitting exhaust flow to pass in a controlled manner after raising the
NOx adsorber to a predetermined temperature for the given catalyst
formulation of the NOx adsorber. Laroo’s disclosure describes that another
predetermined temperature set point is used to close the exhaust flow to the
exhaust leg undergoing desulfation and this temperature is based on the
cooling effect of the exhaust flow on the CDPF. Fact 8. Laroo describes
that heat is transferred by convection from the CDPF to the NOx adsorber.
Fact 6. Since the NOx adsorber is downstream from the CDPF and the
temperature of the NOx adsorber is dependent on the temperature of the
CDPF, see Fact 6, the NOx adsorber would cool because the heat transfer
from the CDPF would cease. See also Fact 9 (finding that when either the
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

16
CDPF or NOx adsorber reaches a predetermined temperature exhaust flow
ceases).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that, as
Laroo describes achieving precise temperatures required for desulfation, see
e.g. Laroo, col. 1, ll. 59-60 (Fact 1), in order to maintain the NOx adsorber at
the precise desulfation temperature, both heating and cooling the NOx
adsorber would be necessary. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that
the flow rate of exhaust would not be modified in order to maintain the NOx
adsorber at the precise desulfation temperature, when Laroo, while not
expressly referring to cooling the NOx adsorber, expressly states that the
exhaust flow is modified in order to maintain the precise desulfation
temperature. Fact 11. As such, the claimed subject matter within claims 39,
40, and 44, of modifying the exhaust flow rate to cool the desulfation leg in
order to hold the desired desulfation temperature substantially constant or
holding the desired temperature substantially constant during desulfation by
cooling the desulfation leg is satisfied by Laroo’s disclosure for the reasons
given supra.
Issue (7)
Appellants’ contentions do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Laroo anticipates determining whether to initiate desulfation based
on sensing either a characteristic of the engine or engine filter system.
Laroo discloses initiating desulfation of the NOx adsorber periodically and
automatically based on a threshold of loss in the storage capacity of the NOx
adsorber. Fact 4. Laroo discloses that the multi-leg exhaust system has
NOx, temperature, and lambda sensors that send signals to the controller.
Fact 3. Sensing NOx, temperature, or lambda value within an exhaust leg is
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

17
sensing a characteristic of the engine filter system. Initiating desulfation
based on a schedule of hours is sensing a characteristic of the engine, the
time of operation. As such, the process step or function within claims 41
and 45 of determining whether to initiate desulfation based on sensing either
a characteristic of the engine or engine filter system is satisfied by Laroo’s
disclosure for the reasons given supra.
Issue (8)
Appellants’ contentions do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
finding Surnilla anticipates the claimed subject matter of injecting a
reductant into an exhaust flow upstream of the NOx absorber. Surnilla
discloses operating certain cylinders in a rich condition and, as such, these
cylinders would produce exhaust gas with unburned hydrocarbons. Fact 12.
The unburned hydrocarbons, the slight rich bias, are the reductant that
releases the stored sulfur within the NOx trap3 when the trap is at the proper
desulfation temperature. Id. Claim 10 requires injecting a reductant into an
exhaust flow upstream of the NOx absorber. Claim 10 does not limit the
injection to be directly into the exhaust flow; the claim language is broader.
We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in
the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than
the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language
may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is
important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written

3 Appellants do not dispute that an NOx absorber is satisfied by a disclosure
of the NOx trap within Surnilla.
Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

18
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment.”) Appellants’ contention requests us to read a
particular embodiment into the claim. We decline. As such, Laroo
anticipates the claimed subject matter within claim 10 of injecting a
reductant into an exhaust flow upstream of the NOx absorber for the reasons
given supra.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claim 42. As such,
claim 42 falls with claim 10 for the same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Laroo
anticipates:
• modifying the exhaust flow rate during desulfation in response to
sensing an exhaust flow characteristic such that the desired
desulfation temperature is held substantially constant. (Issue 1).
• holding the desired temperature of an NOx absorber substantially
constant during desulfation. (Issue 2).
• modifying the exhaust flow rate to cool the desulfation leg in order to
hold the desired desulfation temperature substantially constant. (Issue
5).
• holding the desired temperature substantially constant during
desulfation by cooling the desulfation leg. (Issue 6).
• determining whether to initiate desulfation based on sensing either a
characteristic of the engine or engine filter system. (Issue 7).

Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

19
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding that Laroo
anticipates:
• modifying a flow rate of a reductant in response to sensing an exhaust
flow characteristic in order to hold the desired desulfation temperature
substantially constant. (Issue 3).
• controllably cooling an NOx absorber of the desulfation leg after
desulfation, in particular, by stopping the injection of reductant into
the exhaust flow and restricting the flow rate of the exhaust flow
through the desulfation leg. (Issue 4).
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Surnilla
anticipates the process step of injecting a reductant into an exhaust flow
upstream of the NOx absorber. (Issue 8).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 8-13, 15-27, 29-31,
39-42, 44, and 45 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 6, 7, 14, 28, and 43 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-001232
Application 11/022,692

20
mls

CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413