Yosuke Kosaka et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 201913928929 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2019) 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. 13/928,929 06/27/2013 Yosuke KOSAKA 059278.00066 5866 32294 7590 10/29/2019 Squire PB (NVA/DC Office) ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER LAGUARDA, GONZALO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2019 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): IP-Squire@SquirePB.com sonia.whitney@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOSUKE KOSAKA and KOICHIRO SHINOZAKI Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–8, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate “to an internal EGR [exhaust gas recirculation] amount calculation device for an internal combustion engine, for calculating an internal EGR amount of the engine.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An internal EGR amount calculation device for an internal combustion engine, which changes an internal EGR amount, which is an amount of burned gases remaining in a cylinder, by changing valve timing of at least one of an intake valve and an exhaust valve, comprising: valve timing-obtaining means for obtaining the valve timing; reference in-cylinder gas amount-calculating means for calculating a reference in-cylinder gas amount, which is an amount of burned gases remaining in the cylinder when the valve timing is set to a predetermined reference timing; inflow/outflow gas change amount-calculating means for calculating an amount of change in an amount of burned gases flowing into or out of the cylinder during valve-opening time periods of the intake valve and the exhaust valve, with respect to an amount of burned gases flowing into or out of the cylinder when the valve timing is set to the predetermined reference timing, as an inflow/outflow gas change amount, according to the valve timing; and internal EGR amount-calculating means for calculating the internal EGR amount based on the reference in-cylinder gas amount and the inflow/outflow gas change amount, wherein the internal EGR amount is used to change the valve timing of at least one of the intake valve and exhaust valve. Appeal Br. 23 (App’x 1). Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 3 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Koseki et al. (“Koseki”) US 2004/0139949 A1 July 22, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1–8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Koseki. Final Act. 8, 11. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 stand rejected, alternatively, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Koseki. Id. at 11. OPINION Anticipation We agree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has not adequately shown that Koseki discloses calculating an amount of burned gases flowing into or out of the cylinder, as recited in independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Koseki discloses, in relevant part, calculation sections that calculate: (1) an exhaust valve closure timing in-cylinder residual gas amount (“EVC in-cylinder gas amount”) MRESCYL; (2) a valve overlap period blow-back gas amount (“O/L period blow-back amount”) MRESOL; and (3) an internal exhaust gas recirculation (“EGR”) amount per cylinder MRES based on the calculated MRESCYL and MRESOL. Koseki ¶ 59. The EVC in-cylinder gas amount MRESCYL “correspond[s] to the amount of burned gas remaining in the engine cylinder at the exhaust valve closure timing EVC.” Id. “O/L period blow-back gas amount MRESOL means a quantity of gas Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 4 flow from one of intake and exhaust ports 5p and 6p via combustion chamber 3 to the other port during a valve overlap period during which both of the intake and exhaust valves are open together.” Id. In other words, “O/L period blow-back gas amount MRESOL corresponds to the quantity of gas flow between intake and exhaust ports 5p and 6p via combustion chamber 3 during a valve overlap period, the gas flow being created by the pressure difference between the intake and exhaust ports 5p and 6p.” Id. After a series of calculations of EVC in-cylinder gas amount MRESCYL and O/L period blow-back amount MRESOL, the internal EGR amount per cylinder MRES “is arithmetically calculated by adding O/L period blow- back gas amount MRESOL to EVC in-cylinder residual gas amount MRESCYL.” Id. The Examiner appears to find, in relevant part, that Koseki’s calculation of blow back gas equates to the claimed calculation of the “amount of change in an amount of burned gases flowing into or out of the cylinder during valve-opening time periods of the intake valve and the exhaust valve,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8 (citing Koseki ¶¶ 52, 59, 61); Ans. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Burned gas in this application and the reference is gas that has gone through the combustion process in the cylinder which is usually then exhausted out of the cylinder. In this process a combustion takes place driving down a piston, then the exhaust valves open and the piston begins to move upwards to exhaust the gas through the exhaust port creating positive pressure in the exhaust system. Then, to achieve “blow-back gas” the intake valve is opened before the exhaust valve is closed creating a valve overlap period where the negative pressure (vacuum) in the intake system pulls air from the exhaust system back into the cylinder and out the intake port until such time as the exhaust valve is closed. All of the air moving into and out of the cylinder Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 5 during this process is burned gas which the reference calls “blow- back gas” and is calculated satisfying this limitation. Ans. at 5–6 (citing Koseki ¶ 59, Fig, 9). We agree with the Examiner that Koseki’s O/L period blow-back gas amount MRESOL discloses calculating an amount of burned gases flowing into or out of the cylinder during valve-opening time periods of the intake valve and the exhaust valve. However, the Examiner does not adequately show, and we do not see, where or how Koseki’s calculation of a period blow-back gas amount discloses calculating a change in the amount of its blow-back gas. See Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, based on the record before us — because an anticipation rejection requires a finding in a single reference of each and every limitation as set forth in the claims — we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Koseki. Obviousness For the alternate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 4, 6, and 8, which ultimately depend from independent claim 1, the Examiner’s relies on the same inadequately supported finding of claim 1. See Final Act. 11. Thus, for the same reasons as for claim 1, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, and 8. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 is not sustained. More specifically, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8 under pre-AIA Appeal 2018-006510 Application 13/928,929 6 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and of claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8 102(b) Anticipated by Koseki 1–8 2, 4, 6, 8 103(a) Obvious over Koseki 2, 4, 6, 8 Overall Outcome 1–8 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation