Ex Parte Parmentier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612710533 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/710,533 02/23/2010 MICHAEL PARMENTIER DP-318311 8933 22851 7590 Delphi Technologies, Inc. P.O. Box 5052 M/C 483-400-402 Troy, MI 48007-5052 12/22/2016 EXAMINER LEON JR, JORGE LUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): kandace.k.powell@delphi.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL PARMENTIER and JULIEN SCHMITT Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,5331 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael Parmentier and Julien Schmitt (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—5 and 7.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Delphi International Operations S.A.R.L. Br. 3 (filed Apr. 14, 2014). 2 Claim 6 is canceled. Id. at 14 (Claims App.). Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,533 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to the “regeneration of exhaust after treatment devices” in “internal combustion engines.” Spec. para. 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method of controlling combustion in an internal combustion engine with exhaust after treatment device, wherein upon detection of a request for a regeneration event of said exhaust after treatment device, a regeneration combustion mode comprising a pilot injection and a retarded main injection is operated, the method comprising the steps of: determining a desired torque to be produced by the engine; determining a maximum injected fuel quantity given by a stored smoke-limit map; determining a retard threshold as a maximum timing retard of the start of the main injection that will provide the desired torque without exceeding the maximum injected fuel quantity given by the stored smoke-limit map; and controlling the timing of the start of said main injection so that its retard is later than an injection timing that provides the best torque with the greatest efficiency and is not later than the retard threshold to provide the desired torque, while controlling an injected fuel quantity to provide the desired torque and to not exceed the maximum injected fuel quantity given by the stored smoke-limit map. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. The Examiner rejected claims 1^4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishibashi (US 2008/0078169 Al, pub. Apr. 3, 2008) and Kawashima (US 2005/0060989 Al, pub. Mar. 24, 2005). 2 Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,533 II. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishibashi, Kawashima, and Okugawa (US 2005/0252198 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005). ANALYSIS Rejection I Claim 1 recites, in part, “determining a retard threshold as a maximum timing retard of the start of the main injection . . . without exceeding the maximum injected fuel quantity given by the stored smoke-limit map.” Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that “Ishibashi teaches setting a retard limit based on an oil dilution amount. . . which varies directly with desired torque” and is “later than the injection timing that provides the best torque with the greatest efficiency.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ishibashi, paras. 45 and 56; Fig. 2A). The Examiner relies on Kawashima for disclosing “[determining a maximum injected fuel quantity given by a stored smoke-limit map” and “[cjontrolling an injected fuel quantity ... to not exceed the maximum injected fuel quantity.” Id. at 4 (citing Kawashima, para. 23). Appellants argue that because Ishibashi determines a retard threshold based on different criteria, namely, oil dilution amount, the resultant retard threshold will have a different value than Appellants’, which is determined “without exceeding the maximum injected fuel quantity given by the stored smoke-limit map.” Br. 9-10. Appellants assert that “Kawashima does not overcome this deficiency,” because “Kawashima merely teaches determining a maximum fuel injection amount to prevent smoke, but does 3 Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,533 not teach or suggest using the determined maximum fuel quantity in the determination of a retard threshold, as specified in Appellants’ claim 1.” Id. at 10. The Examiner responds that Appellants appear to improperly read limitations from the Specification into the claims because the claims do not require “controlling the injection timing and fuel quantity simultaneously to achieve a given torque value.” Ans. 2. According to the Examiner, the claims are concerned with determining the maximum injection timing retard that will provide a desired torque (Ishibashi paragraphs [045] and [056]); determining the maximum injected fuel quantity that will not produce smoke above a given maximum smoke production requirement (Kawashima paragraph [023]); and subsequently controlling said timing retard and fuel quantity to be within said maximum values, respectively. Id. at 2—3. Thus, the Examiner contends that the claims are drawn “to the limits of the respective controls that are not to be exceeded, as opposed to a precise calibration of said controls to achieve a specific torque value.” Id. at 3. The Examiner further notes that “Ishibashi and Kawashima are both fully aware of the balance necessary to inject a fuel quantity that limits smoke while simultaneously adjusting a timing retard that produces a desired torque,” and that both Ishibashi and Kawashima incorporate the same into their engine control methods. Id. (citing Ishibashi, para. 44, Fig. 3A, and Kawashima, paras. 23, 26). We do not agree with the Examiner’s position because, although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that claim 1 requires determining the maximum values of the injection timing retard and the injected fuel quantity, 4 Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,533 nonetheless, claim 1 also requires that the maximum injection timing retard (“retard threshold”) is determined such that the injected fuel quantity does not exceed a predetermined maximum injected fuel quantity (“given by the stored smoke-limit map”). See Br. 13 (Claims App.). Thus, claim 1 requires a relationship between the predetermined maximum quantity of injected fuel and the retard threshold, in that one is used to determine the other, not just determining their maximum values as the Examiner suggests. In contrast, in Ishibashi, the maximum injection timing retard, i.e., retard threshold, is based on an oil dilution amount, rather than a “maximum injected fuel quantity given by the stored smoke-limit map.” See Ishibashi paras. 45, 56. Furthermore, notwithstanding that Kawashima discloses a maximum fuel injection amount (Qfmax), Kawashima also does not recognize a relationship between the maximum fuel injection amount and a retard threshold. See Kawashima, para. 26. At most Kawashima discloses increasing the injected fuel amount up to the maximum fuel injection amount (Qfmax) as an alternative to retarding the fuel injection timing in order to raise exhaust gas temperature. Kawashima para. 26. As neither Ishibashi nor Kawashima recognizes a relationship between the maximum fuel injection amount and the retard threshold, the Examiner has not sufficiently established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the combined teachings of Ishibashi and Kawashima discloses “determining a retard threshold as a maximum timing retard of the start of the main injection . . . without exceeding the maximum injected fuel quantity,” as recited in independent claim 1. 5 Appeal 2015-003404 Application 12/710,533 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—4 as unpatentable over Ishibashi and Kawashima. Rejection II The Examiner does not rely on Okugawa in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1 based on Ishibashi and Kawashima. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 7 over the combined teachings of Ishibashi, Kawashima, and Okugawa. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation