Ex Parte Takezoe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201713480641 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) 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. 13/480,641 05/25/2012 Hiroyuki TAKEZOE MNL-2018-2923 7103 23117 7590 03/30/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER ROGERS, DAVID M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROYUKI TAKEZOE, HIROSHI KATSURAHARA and CHIKA OZAKI Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—3 and 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “an apparatus for estimating exhaust gas recirculation quantity (EGR-quantity) which flows into a cylinder of an internal combustion engine.” Specification 1. Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'. 1. An apparatus for estimating exhaust gas recirculation quantity of an internal combustion engine provided with an EGR valve which adjusts a quantity of an exhaust gas recirculating from an exhaust passage to an intake passage upstream of an [sic] throttle valve through an EGR passage, the apparatus comprising: a computing portion for computing a quantity of the exhaust gas passing through the EGR valve by means of an EGR valve model which simulates a behavior of a recirculated exhaust gas passing through the EGR valve in the EGR passage; a computing portion for computing a quantity of the exhaust gas flowing into a cylinder based on the quantity of the exhaust gas passing through the EGR valve, by means of an EGR-gas-delay model which simulates a behavior of the exhaust gas passing through the EGR valve and the throttle valve and flows into a cylinder; a total-gas-quantity computing portion for computing a total quantity of gas passing through the throttle valve by means of an [sic] throttle model which simulates a behavior of a gas passing through the throttle valve in the intake passage', an intake air flow rate obtaining portion for detecting or estimating a fresh air quantity flowing through the intake passage; and a correction portion for correcting a computed total-gas- quantity passing through the throttle valve based on the fresh air quantity detected or estimated by the intake air flow rate obtaining portion; wherein the EGR valve model is defined by a map which defines a relationship between an opening degree of the EGR valve, the total gas quantity passing through the throttle valve and the exhaust gas quantity passing through the EGR valve. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—3 and 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0235603 Al; published October 19, 2006) and Shutty (US Patent 2 Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 Application Publication Number 2009/0132153 Al; published May 21, 2009. Final Rejection 2—14. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 21, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed May 25, 2016), the Answer (mailed March 29, 2016) and the Final Rejection (mailed March 3, 2015) for the respective details. Appellants argue Kobayashi’s paragraph 147 cited by the Examiner in the Final Rejection fails to disclose “both the claimed total-gas-quantity computing portion and the intake air flow rate obtaining portion” of claim 1. Appeal Brief 8—9. The Examiner finds Kobayashi discloses the claimed total-gas-quantity: Kobayashi’s equation 13 clearly mathematically states mc-air-nic-mc-egr From this, simple algebra yields mc — mc-air + m c-egr which says that the total gas going into Kobayashi's cylinders is the sum of the incoming air (mc_air, which is also the same as the amount of fresh air going into the cylinders) and the EGR gas (nic-egr, which is also the same as the amount of EGR gas going into Kobayashi's cylinders). This concept of a total amount of gas flow can also be seen in Kobayashi’s FIG. 11 (wherein, in Kobayashi's case, the mt is the flow rate of incoming air). As . . . the total amount of gas (fresh air and EGR gas) going into the cylinders is equal to the total amount of gas entering the system (sum of the intake air and the EGR gas). Answer 23—24 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend: While paragraph [0147] of Kobayashi discloses finding the cylinder inflow fresh air flow rate mc_air based on the cylinder 3 Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 inflow gas flow rate (flow rate of the gas flowing into the cylinder) mc and the cylinder inflow EGR gas flow rate mc.egr, paragraph [0147]does not disclose or suggest a total-gas-quantity computing portion for computing a total quantity of gas passing through the throttle valve by means of an throttle model which simulates a behavior of a gas passing through the throttle valve in the intake passage. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants further contend the mc term does not represent the total gas as alleged by the Final Rejection. Appeal Brief 9. “Instead, Kobayashi explicitly and unambiguously states that ‘mc is the cylinder inflow gas flow rate defined as the flow rate of the gas flowing into the cylinder. ’ Cylinder inflow gas flow rate, as explicitly stated by Kobayashi, is clearly a different parameter than total gas.” Appeal Brief 9 (citing Kobayashi, paragraph 147). Appellants’ Specification on page 61 discloses: The total-gas-quantity computing portion 37 computes a total gas quantity flowing through the throttle valve 21 by using of a throttle model 39 which simulates a behavior of gas passing through the throttle valve 21. Total gas quantity flowing through the throttle valve 21 is denoted by “QTHR.” As the throttle model 39, a throttle model shown in JP-2008-101626A may be used. In the present embodiment, the computed “QTHR” is corrected by a detection valve of the airflow meter 14. Specifically, when a specified correction-valve-leaming condition 10 is established, a difference between the detection value of the airflow meter 14 and the computed “QTHR” is stored in a memory as a gas-quantity-correction coefficient 1 It is noted, Appellants rely upon a throttle model that is well known in the art to assist the total-gas-quantity computing portion in obtaining the total gas quantity flowing through the throttle. 4 Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 “Cgas.” The computed “QTHR” is corrected by using of “Cgas,” whereby “QTHR” can be obtained with high accuracy. [See Figure 2.] The Examiner finds, “Kobayashi does not expressly teach provided with an EGR valve which adjusts a quantity of an exhaust gas recirculating from an exhaust passage to an intake passage upstream of an [sic] throttle valve through an EGR passage.” Final Rejection 6. The Examiner further finds: Kobayashi points out that all of these quantities are modeled “... FIG. 11 is a view of the basic concept of an intake pipe model able to be applied to an internal combustion engine provided with an EGR system ....” By teaching this concept, Kobayashi teaches a “genus” which is modeling the general combining of intake fresh air and EGR gas to form a total quantity of gas that enters the cylinders in internal combustion engines provided with EGR systems. This genus tends to anticipate Appellant’s “species” which is a total-gas-quantity computing portion for computing a total quantity of gas passing through the throttle valve by means of a throttle model. Answer 23 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Shutty addresses Kobayashi’s deficiency, “[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Kobayashi’s exhaust and intake system modeling methods to Shutty’s engine with an EGR passage entering the intake system upstream of the intake throttle.” Final Rejection 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi in paragraph 345 discloses the claimed correction portion is erroneous because “Kobayashi discloses directly calculating the cylinder inflow fresh air flow rate rather than calculating the cylinder inflow exhaust gas flow rate, but 5 Appeal 2016-006086 Application 13/480,641 clearly does not teach or suggest correcting a computed total-gas-quantity passing through the throttle valve based on a detected or estimated fresh air quantity.” Appeal Brief 10. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The claimed total-gas- quantity computing portion obtains the total quantity of gas passing through the throttle valve for an engine which is corrected based on the detected or estimated fresh air quantity. See claim 1. Kobayashi teaches if directly calculating the cylinder inflow fresh air flow rate, when the swirl control valve is closed and the cylinder inflow exhaust gas flow rate becomes greater, it is sufficient to correct the cylinder inflow fresh air flow rate to become smaller faster compared with the case where the swirl control valve isopen. Kobayashi, paragraph 345. It is not evident that Kobayashi discloses the invention as claimed. Further, Shutty fails to address Kobayashi’s noted deficiencies. We reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, both commensurate in scope, as well as, dependent claims 2, 3 and 8. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—3 and 7—9 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation