Ex Parte WADA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2002

09304267 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2002)

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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHUICHI WADA
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Shuichi Wada appeals from the final rejection of claims 1
and 3. Claims 2 and 4 through 14, the only other claims pending
in the application, stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
THE INVENTION
The subject matter on appeal relates to “catalyst
deterioration detecting apparatus for an internal combustion
engine which can detect deterioration of the catalytic converter
with enhanced reliability and accuracy by detecting accurately
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
2
the temperature-rise state of the catalyst and increasing the
frequency of the chance for the catalyst deterioration decision”
(specification, page 1). Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A catalyst deterioration detecting apparatus for an
internal combustion engine, comprising:
an engine load detector operable to arithmetically determine
parameter values corresponding to load states of an internal
combustion engine;
an accumulator operable to arithmetically determine an
accumulated value by accumulating counter values corresponding to
said parameter values;
a first comparator operable to compare said accumulated
value with a first predetermined value corresponding to an
operative temperature of a catalytic converter; and
a catalyst deterioration determiner operable to determine a
deterioration of said catalytic converter when said accumulated
value attains or exceeds said first predetermined value.
THE PRIOR ART
The reference relied on by the examiner to support the final
rejection is:
Yamashita et al. (Yamashita) 5,727,383 March 17, 1998
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yamashita.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 8), claims 1 and 3 also
stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Japanese reference 6-264725 to Takada. Upon reconsideration (see
page 3 in the answer), the examiner has since withdrawn this
rejection.
3
No. 11) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection. 1
DISCUSSION
I. Grouping of claims
On page 4 in the main brief, the appellant states that
“[c]laims 1 and 3 stand or fall together.” In accordance with
this statement, and pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we will
decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone. Claim 3, which
depends from claim 1, shall stand or fall therewith.
II. The merits
Yamashita discloses an “apparatus for detecting a
deterioration of a catalyst disposed in an exhaust system of an
internal combustion engine” (column 1, lines 10 through 12). The
description of the apparatus at column 9, line 52, through column
10, line 22, and the depiction thereof in Figures 6 and 7 form
the factual basis for the examiner’s finding of anticipation.
The description reads as follows:
In carrying out the routine for determining the
deterioration of the three-way catalytic converter 13
in FIG. 6, the CPU 32 first checks in step 501 to see
if the catalyst activation flag XCATACT has changed
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
4
from “0” to “1.” If the flag is found to have changed
from “0” to “1,” step 502 is reached. In step 502, the
CPU 32 sets the accumulated intake air quantity QASUM
to “QACLO” and stores it. The accumulated intake air
quantity QASUM is an accumulation of the intake air
quantity QA calculated since the start-up of the
engine. The calculation is performed by an accumulated
intake air quantity calculating routine shown in FIG.
7. In carrying out the routine of FIG. 7, the CPU 32
checks in step 601 to see if the engine is started
illustratively by turning on the ignition key. If the
engine is found to be started (ignition key=ON), step
602 is reached. In step 602, the CPU 32 updates the
accumulated intake air quantity QASUM by adding to the
current quantity QASUM the intake air quantity QA
calculated on the basis of the readings from the air
flow meter 28. Although the first embodiment
calculates the intake air quantity QA based on the
readings of the air flow meter 28, this is not
limitative of the invention. Alternatively, the intake
air quantity QA may be estimated from the intake air
pressure PM detected by the intake air pressure sensor
and from the engine rotational speed Ne measured by the
rotational speed sensor 25. The accumulated intake air
quantity QASUM is initialized to “0” at the start-up of
the engine.
With the accumulated intake air quantity QASUM
stored in step 502, the CPU 32 goes to step 503 in
which a check is made to see of the value “QACLO”
exceeds a predetermined deterioration reference value
QACDT. If QACLO
QACDT, the CPU 32 terminates this
routine immediately. If QACLO > QACDT, the CPU 32
enters step 504 in which the catalyst deterioration
flag XCATDT is set to “1.” In step 505, the CPU 32
stores the deterioration information into the backup
RAM 35 and executes a predetermined diagnostic process
(e.g., illumination of the diagnostic lamp 29).
In applying Yamashita against the appealed claims, the
examiner says of the foregoing disclosure that “[e]lements
corresponding to the engine load detector (column 10, lines 3-5),
accumulator (column 9, lines 61-62), comparator (column 10, lines
12-15) and catalyst deterioration determiner (column 10, lines
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
5
17-22) as claimed are included” (answer, page 2). In other
words, the examiner considers the claim limitations relating to
the “engine load detector” to be met by Yamashita’s disclosure
that “the first embodiment calculates the intake air quantity QA
based on the readings of the air flow meter 28,” the claim
limitations relating to the “accumulator” to be met by
Yamashita’s disclosure that “the [QASUM] calculation [by CPU 32]
is performed by an accumulated intake air quantity calculating
routine shown in FIG. 7," the claim limitations relating to the
“first comparator” to be met by Yamashita’s disclosure that
“[w]ith the accumulated intake air quantity QASUM stored in step
502, the CPU 32 goes to step 503 in which a check is made to see
if the value ’QACLO’ exceeds a predetermined deterioration
reference value QACDT,” and the claim limitations relating to the
“catalyst deterioration determiner” to be met by Yamashita’s
disclosure that “[i]f QACLO > QACDT, the CPU 32 enters step 504
in which the catalyst deterioration flag XCATDT is set to ’1’.
In step 505, the CPU 32 stores the deterioration information into
the backup RAM 35 and executes a predetermined diagnostic process
(e.g., illumination of the diagnostic lamp 29).”
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issue with
respect to the examiner’s rejection is whether Yamashita responds
to the relationship set forth in claim 1 between the “parameter
values” which are arithmetically determined by the engine load
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
6
detector as corresponding to load states of the engine and the
“counter values” which correspond to the parameter values and are
accumulated by the accumulator to arithmetically determine an
accumulated value. In essence, the appellant contends that by
setting counter values that correspond to the load parameters and
accumulating the counter values, the claimed invention affords
several advantages over, and presumably differs from, the prior
art system disclosed by Yamashita wherein, according to the
appellant, the detected values from the load detection means are
directly accumulated. The examiner responds that due to the
breadth of the appealed claims “[t]he term ’counter values’
embraces the intake air quantity values QA determined by
Yamashita” (answer, page 4).
While it may be true as urged by the appellant that
Yamashita’s parameter values, intake air quantities QA, are
accumulated by Yamashita’s accumulator to arithmetically
determine an accumulated value, QASUM or QACLO, it is not
apparent, nor has the appellant cogently explained, why these
parameter values QA, when accumulated by the accumulator to
arithmetically determine the accumulated value QASUM or QACLO,
are not “counter values” to the extent broadly required by claim
1. The claim simply does not differentiate the parameter values
and the counter values defined therein so as to distinguish over
the above noted disclosure by Yamashita. The breadth of claim 1
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
7
in this regard is manifested by the examiner’s undisputed
observation, amply supported by the record, that the claim
limitations at issue read on the embodiment described in the
appellant’s specification wherein
[t]he engine load detecting means 31 fetches the intake
air quantity signal Qa supplied from the air-flow
sensor 6 to thereby output the very intake air quantity
Qa as the parameter value which corresponds to the
engine load.
In this conjunction, it should be mentioned that
the accumulating means 32 may use the intake air
quantity Qa itself intactly as a counter value
corresponding to the parameter value.
. . .
. . . the engine load detecting means 31 outputs
the intake air quantity signal Qa as the parameter
value corresponding to the engine load, while the
accumulating means 32 accumulates the intake air
quantities Qa as the counter values to arithmetically
determine the accumulated value Q [specification,
page 21].
Thus, the appellant’s position that the examiner’s finding
of anticipation is unsound is not persuasive. We shall therefore
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and
claim 3 which stands or falls therewith, as being anticipated by
Yamashita.
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
8
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2001-2278
Application No. 09/304,267
9
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK
& SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037-3213