11145472 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2010)

Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 28, 2010

11145472 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2010)

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. 11/145,472 06/03/2005 Ralf Schmidt 3326 3791 7590 10/28/2010 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY 103 EAST NECK ROAD HUNTINGTON, NY 11743 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2010 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte RALF SCHMIDT and HENRIK SCHITTENHELM ____________________ Appeal 2009-009019 Application 11/145,472 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, JOHN C. KERINS, and MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-009019 Application 11/145,472 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for the regeneration of, i.e., the removal of soot from, a ceramic sensor surface in a particulate removal system for an internal combustion engine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for defined regeneration of a sooty surface, in particular of a ceramic sensor surface of a first substrate element, comprising the steps of burning off soot particles adhering to the surface by a dielectrically hindered discharge by means of a discharge device; providing in the discharge device a first and a second discharge electrode and a dielectric located between the discharge electrodes; setting a power of the electrically hindered discharge such that a higher rate of removal of the soot particles than their rate of deposition of the surface is effected; after a predetermined length of time, switching off the electrically hindered discharge; and detecting a remaining soot deposit by means of a measuring device mounted on the surface. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Birckigt US 6,938,409 B2 Sep. 6, 2005 REJECTIONS Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Birckigt. Ans. 2. Appeal 2009-009019 Application 11/145,472 3 OPINION We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we have determined that the applied prior art does not establish that claims 1-8 lack novelty. Therefore, the rejection on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow. With respect to claim construction, it is our conclusion that both method claim 1 and apparatus claim 2 require a sensor made of ceramic material having a surface upon which soot particles are deposited. Birckigt discloses a particulate filter 10 with walls 1 made of open cell ceramic material, closed up by a ceramic cover 2. Col. 6, ll. 48-52. Thus we agree with the Examiner that Birckigt discloses ceramic surfaces which particulates or soot are collected upon. See Ans. 3. Birckigt further discloses that plasma regeneration of the filter is periodically necessary to remove the soot or particulate matter. Col. 5, ll. 1-11. The operating environment for the regeneration is shown in Figure 13. The PVS (pulse voltage source) 210 which controls the voltage to the ceramic surfaces, is controlled by control unit 220. Col. 8, ll. 27-38. The sensors for regulating the regeneration are sensors 222, 223, 224 and 225. Id. The sensors are in the flow path external to the ceramic surfaces of the filter 212. Figure 13. Therefore, it can be seen that the ceramic material 212 in the filter does not have a sensor associated with the ceramic surfaces. Instead Birckigt uses temperature and pressure sensors 222, 223, 224 and 225 to control the regeneration process. Id. We acknowledge the Examiner’s argument “that the surface of Birckigt’s device extends beyond the filter itself[,] and therefore the measuring device is mounted on this surface.” Ans. 5:10-12. However, there Appeal 2009-009019 Application 11/145,472 4 is no evidence that the sensors 222, 223, 224 and 225 of Birckigt contain any ceramic material, nor is there any evidence that the sensors are periodically covered with particulate that must be removed. Therefore we are in agreement with Appellants that Birckigt does not disclose a ceramic sensor surface as called for in either method claim 1 or apparatus claim 2. Since Birckigt lacks one element of the claimed combination, it is our finding that the claimed subject matter does not lack novelty over the Birckigt reference. The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. REVERSED nlk STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY 103 EAST NECK ROAD HUNTINGTON NY 11743