Ex Parte ODER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2003

09424606 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHAEL ODER
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, STAAB, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 12 through 27, which are all of the claims
remaining in this application. Claims 1 through 11 have been
canceled.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for operating an
internal combustion engine (claim 12), a control element for a
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
1 Our understanding of the above-noted foreign language
document (WO 98/09063) relied upon by the examiner is based on an
English language equivalent, U.S. Patent No. 5,975,044. The
examiner makes clear on page 3 of the answer (Paper No. 14) that
it is the publication date of March 5, 1998 of WO 98/09063 that
is being relied upon. Appellant has not disputed that this
document is prior art to him.
2
control unit of an internal combustion engine (claim 24), and an
internal combustion engine including such a control unit (claim
27), wherein an optimal switchover is possible between stratified
fuel injection operation during a compression phase (first mode)
and homogeneous operation during an intake phase (second mode),
with the switchover taking place from the first mode initially to
a transitional operation of the second mode and then to normal
operation of the second mode, thereby leading to a significantly
lower increase of the torque generated by the internal combustion
engine at the time of such switchover. Independent claims 12, 24
and 27 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a
copy of those claims can be found in Appendix A of appellant’s
brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Iida et al. (Iida ‘947) 5,970,947 Oct. 26, 1999
Kamura et al. (Kamura) WO 98/090631 Mar. 5, 1998
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
3
Claims 12 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Iida ‘947.
Claims 12 through 27 additionally stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamura.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
14, mailed December 4, 2001) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13, filed August
7, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed February 20, 2002)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
4
In rejecting claims 12 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Iida ‘947, the examiner has noted that
this patent teaches a direct injection spark ignition engine
wherein gasoline fuel is directly injected into the combustion
chamber of a cylinder in a variety of modes, which modes are
depicted in Figure 3 of the patent. More particularly, the
examiner has determined (answer, page 3) that the second term
lean mode seen in Figure 3 of Iida ‘947 and described therein
corresponds to appellant’s first mode, that the first-term lean
mode of Iida ‘947 corresponds to appellant’s transition mode and
that the stoichio-feedback mode therein corresponds to
appellant’s second mode. Further insight is provided on pages 4
and 5 of the answer, wherein the examiner notes that Iida ‘947 is
directed to solving the same problem as appellant, which is
suppressing a torque shock when switching from a first mode of
injection in the compression phase to a second mode of injection
during an intake phase, and that both appellant and Iida ‘947
solve this problem by having a transition mode of injection which
is a lean homogeneous mode wherein fuel is injected during the
intake stroke of the piston.
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
5
Appellant’s response to the examiner’s rejection essentially
consists of an assertion that the system and method of Iida ‘947
are very different than what is being disclosed and claimed by
appellant (however, without any explanation from appellant as to
why or how they are different); an assertion that the examiner
has not shown how the indicated modes in Iida ‘947 correspond to
appellant’s claimed modes; and an assertion that Iida ‘947
teaches away from appellant’s invention.
Having reviewed and evaluated Iida ‘947, we must agree with
the examiner that the method, control element (70) and internal
combustion engine disclosed therein anticipate the corresponding
method, control element and internal combustion engine claimed by
appellant. As noted in column 3, lines 55-60, of Iida ‘947, the
objective therein is to provide a control apparatus and method
for a cylinder-injection spark-ignition internal combustion
engine, which apparatus and corresponding method are capable of
always maintaining an appropriate combustion state and a
stabilized engine operating state in which no substantial torque
shock is caused upon changeover of injection mode. Of particular
importance in this regard is the disclosure at column 5, lines
11-56, of Iida ‘947, wherein a transitional operation is broadly
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
6
described between first and second injection modes and includes
both transitional operation at a first change speed in the first
mode before the actual changeover point and transitional
operation at a second change speed in the second mode immediately
following changeover, with gradual transition to normal second
mode operation. At column 6, lines 12-24, it is made clear that
the air-fuel ratio transition means sets the first and
second change speeds in dependence on a quantity of intake
air amount adjustment, which is effected by intake air
amount adjusting means provided in the internal combustion
engine, for adjusting the intake air amount in accordance
with the output from the acceleration state detecting means.
In this case, the first and second change speeds can be set
to follow a control for increasing or decreasing the intake
air amount, so that the fuel injection amount can be changed
depending on the increasingly or decreasingly controlled
intake air amount. As a result, it is possible to
adequately prevent a change in the engine output torque upon
changeover the injection mode.
Although Iida ‘947 provides for transitional operation in
both the first and second modes around the injection mode
changeover point, we note that appellant’s claims on appeal do
not preclude additional transitional operation in the first mode
prior to the changeover point, and we emphasize again that Iida
‘947 clearly provides for transitional operation of the second
mode initially upon switching from the first mode to the second
mode and then switches from transitional operation of the second
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
7
mode to normal operation of the second mode (i.e., with the
transition during the second mode occurring at a second change
speed smaller than the first change speed (in the first mode) so
that a torque shock after the changeover of injection mode is
reduced appropriately). Contrary to appellant’s assertions, we
see nothing in Iida ‘947, column 12, lines 28-34, which teaches
away from appellant’s invention. As the examiner has indicated,
the second-term injection lean mode of Iida ‘947 corresponds to
appellant’s first mode, while the first-term injection lean mode
encompasses appellant’s transitional mode, and the stoichio-
feedback mode corresponds to appellant’s normal second mode.
Although Iida ‘947 also has an additional open-loop mode of
injection, nothing in appellant’s claims on appeal precludes any
such additional injection mode.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 12, 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Iida ‘947. As is apparent from
appellant’s statement of the grouping of claims on page 3 of the
brief, appellant has chosen not to argue claims 13-23 separately
from independent claim 12, and claims 25 and 26 separately from
independent claim 24, from which they depend. Accordingly, we
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
8
consider that claims 13 through 23 fall with claim 12 and that
claims 25 and 26 fall with claim 24.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 12
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kamura. Having reviewed Kamura, particularly Figures 1, 4, 5 and
6, and the disclosure associated therewith, we agree with the
examiner that the later lean mode, seen in Figure 1 as being
performed during the compression stroke, corresponds to
appellant’s first mode, and that the earlier lean mode and
stoichiometric mode, seen in Figure 1 as being performed during
the intake stroke of the piston, respectively, correspond to
appellant’s transitional operation of the second mode and normal
operation of the second mode.
Kamura notes (e.g., col. 3, lines 60+), that the invention
therein provides a control unit for an in-cylinder injection
internal combustion engine in which fuel is directly injected
into a combustion chamber and which is adapted to select,
according to an operation state of the engine, a compression
stroke injection mode for mainly injecting fuel at a compression
stroke and an intake stroke injection mode for mainly injecting
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
9
fuel at an intake stroke. Column 3, lines 13-18, make clear that
the compressed lean mode (later lean mode of Fig. 1) is selected
in a region where both engine rotational speed and engine load
are low; whereas, as the engine rotational speed and engine load
increases therefrom, and an injection mode changeover is
required, the intake lean mode (earlier lean mode of Fig. 1), the
stoichiometric mode, and enriched mode are successively selected
in response to the magnitude of the increase. Kamura notes (col.
4, lines 13-22) that the relationship between the operation state
and the intake correction amount is set differently between the
compression stroke injection mode and the intake stroke injection
mode, and that owing to the configuration of the control, the
intake amount can be appropriately corrected for each of the
operational modes such as compression stroke injection mode and
intake injection stroke mode in the in-cylinder injection
internal combustion engine, thus allowing drivability to improve.
Aside from a bare assertion (brief, pages 6 and 7),
appellant has provided no reasoning as to why the examiner’s
determination regarding the correlation of the noted modes in
Kamura (Figs. 1 and 6) do not correspond to appellant’s claimed
fuel injection modes, particularly the examiner’s determination
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
10
that the “earlier lean mode” of the intake stroke injection mode
in Kamura corresponds to appellant’s transitional operation of
the second mode, while the stoichiometric mode in the intake
stroke injection mode corresponds to appellant’s normal operation
of the second mode. As for appellant’s assertion that Kamura
teaches away merely because it provides four fuel injection
modes, we see no basis for any such conclusion and again point
out that additional modes, such as the enriched mode in Kamura,
are not precluded by appellant’s open-ended “comprising” format
claims before us on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Kamura.
In Summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 12
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iida
‘947 and rejecting claims 12 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Kamura are both affirmed.
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CEF:pgg
Appeal No. 2002-1828
Application 09/424,606
12
Kenyon & Kenyon
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004