Ex Parte Sloane et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201612897906 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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. 12/897,906 10/05/2010 THOMPSON M. SLOANE P001807-R&D-MJL 2806 60770 7590 12/16/2016 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER SHEPPARD, JASON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMPSON M. SLOANE, KEVIN L. PERRY, DAVID L. HILDEN, NORMAN D. BRINKMAN, JONG H. LEE, MICHAEL B. VIOLA, and STEVEN J, SCHMIEG Appeal 2014-0069021 Application 12/897,9062 Technology Center 3700 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 26, 2013), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 27, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 26, 2014). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “General Motors Company” (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2014-006902 Application 12/897,906 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates generally to managing the selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas stream from a lean- bum engine. Spec. 11. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below and representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of determining amounts of additions of an oxidized hydrocarbon reductant material for the catalyst-enhanced reduction of NOx constituents in the exhaust from a vehicle powered by a lean-bum engine; the vehicle engine comprising a plurality of combustion cylinders in which a fuel and air are mixed and ignited for powering reciprocating pistons in the cylinders and an exhaust manifold, connected to the cylinders, in which manifold the combustion products from the cylinders are combined as sequential portions of an exhaust gas stream comprising oxygen, water, nitrogen, and NOx; and the vehicle comprising an exhaust conduit for conducting the exhaust gas stream to a reactor into contact with a silver/alumina catalyst, contained within the reactor, for the chemical reduction of NOx constituents by reaction with the added oxidized hydrocarbon reductant; the method comprising, as the vehicle is being operated and the exhaust stream produced: continually measuring (a) the oxygen content of a portion of the exhaust stream and (b) the NOx content of a portion the exhaust stream before the stream enters the reduction catalyst- containing reactor; continually measuring (c) the temperature of the reduction catalyst in the reduction catalyst-containing reactor; continually measuring (d) the gas hourly space velocity of the exhaust gas stream flowing in contact with the reduction catalyst; and, using at least the four measured values (a—d), continually determining an amount of the reductant material, to maximize NOx reduction by the silver catalyst, to be added to a current portion of the exhaust gas stream before it enters the reduction reactor, such determination being made using a pre-programmed, on vehicle computer and using at least the current four measured values; and 2 Appeal 2014-006902 Application 12/897,906 adding the currently determined amount of reductant to the exhaust stream before it flows into contact with the reduction catalyst. App. Br. 15—16, Claims Appendix. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 4—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmieg (US 2008/0066456 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008). Final Act. 2—6. Claims 2, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmieg and Miyadera (US 6,057,259, iss. May 2, 2000). Id. at 6—8. DISCUSSION We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs against the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Rejection, and we are not persuaded of error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale provided in the Answer and Final Rejection as our own, and we note the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—5, 8, and 10 The Examiner found Schmieg performs all the recited steps of claim 1 using a hydrocarbon reductant, instead of an oxidized hydrocarbon reductant (OHR) as claimed. Final Act. 2-4. Accordingly, there is no dispute that Schmieg discloses the process claimed, albeit utilizing a different reductant. The Examiner finds: Schmieg teaches that, as with hydrocarbon, partially oxidized hydrocarbons allow reduction of NOx over a silver alumina catalyst at lower temperatures (see paragraph [0007]). 3 Appeal 2014-006902 Application 12/897,906 Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried the method disclosed by Schmieg using an oxidized reductant as an art-recognized, comparably equivalent substitute for the hydrocarbon reductant disclosed by Schmieg. Id. at 4. Appellants’ challenge the rejection of claim 1 by arguing that the proposed rejection is improper because Schmieg teaches away from the claimed invention. App. Br. 5—10; Reply Br. 2—5. According to Appellants A skilled artisan would have been led in a direction divergent from the use of OHC reductant materials in Schmieg’s disclosed method to reduce NOx. Indeed, Schmieg identifies OHC materials only with enough brevity to quickly reject their feasibility and ultimately their use: "The use of partially oxidized hydrocarbons (e.g., alcohols) over Ag/Al203 allows reduction of NOx at lower temperatures. However such reductants are unavailable on-board the vehicle." Id. at |0007. The only mention of OHC materials in Schmieg is thus a deprecating one. App. Br. 7. Appellants’ teaching away argument is not persuasive because it does not point out why a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Schmieg, would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellants. Schmieg is directed to a process of selectively reducing NOx emissions of an internal combustion engine by dispensing a hydrocarbon reductant upstream of a silver-alumina catalytic reactor device. Schmieg, Abstract. The sentence Appellants cite in Schmieg as “deprecating” merely recognizes a limitation in using OHRs—the need to store OHRs on-board vehicles because of their unavailability in vehicles. In other words, Schmieg teaches that hydrocarbon reductants are already available on-board vehicles because 4 Appeal 2014-006902 Application 12/897,906 “[t]he hydrocarbon reductant may comprise engine fuel.” Id. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we find that Schmieg does not discredit, criticize, or discourage the claimed solution. In fact, Schmieg expressly recognizes that partially oxidized hydrocarbons over an alumina silver catalyst allows reduction of nitrogen oxides at lower temperatures. See Schmieg 17. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner is not proposing to modify Schmieg’s process by substituting an OHR. Rather, the Examiner is arguing that it would have been obvious to utilize an OHR over a silver alumina catalyst at lower temperatures to reduce nitrogen oxides, given Schmieg’s process and teachings. Ans. 3 (“As Schmieg acknowledges, it is already known in the art to use OHC’s as reductants, and it is further known to use said reductants with silver/alumina catalysts (i.e., the claimed catalyst).”). In other words, the argument the Examiner is making is that Schmieg’s disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter. We are not persuaded otherwise, because on the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants rely on the patentability of independent claim 1 and do not separately argue dependent claims 2—5, 8, and 10. Therefore, we sustain the rejection claims 2—5, 8, and 10 for the same reasons as claim 1. 5 Appeal 2014-006902 Application 12/897,906 Dependent claims 6, 7, and 9 We have considered but are not persuaded by Appellants’ separate arguments regarding dependent claims 6, 7, and 9. App. Br. 11—14; Reply Br. 5—7. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and response to arguments on pages 3—6 of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The decision to reject claims 1—10 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation