Ex Parte Gady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2016

12578899 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016)

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.
12/578,899 10/14/2009 Kevin Andrew Gady P005612-PTE-CD 7228
74175 7590 11/29/2016
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
TRAN, DIEM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2016 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN ANDREW GADY and AMIN ABBOUD
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,8991
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin Andrew Gady and Amin Abboud (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 17—19
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by van Nieuwstadt (US
6,546,720 B2, iss. Apr. 15, 2003).2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GM Global
Technology Operations, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3 (filed Jan. 21, 2014).
2 The Examiner allowed claims 1—9, 11—16, and 21. Final Act. 3. Claims
10 and 20 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 13, 15 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,899
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention “relates to emission control systems, and more
particularly to systems and methods for determining whether ammonia slip
occurs in a selective catalytic reduction system.” Spec. 12.
Claim 17, reproduced below, is independent and is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
17. A method comprising:
adjusting a flow rate of a dosing agent, wherein the
adjusted flow rate controls an amount of ammonia (NH3) in
exhaust gas upstream from a catalyst;
comparing first and second samples of a signal based on
the adjusted flow rate, wherein the signal indicates an amount of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and an amount of NH3 in exhaust gas
downstream from the catalyst;
determining whether NH3 is present in the exhaust gas
downstream from the catalyst based on the adjusted flow rate and
the comparison; and
determining whether a slip in the amount of NH3 in the
exhaust gas has occurred based on whether the signal indicates
a change in the amount of NOx by more than a predetermined
amount.
Appeal Br. 14—15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 17, and thereby the
rejections of dependent claims 18, 19, and 22, relies on van Nieuwstadt to
disclose, “determin[ing] whether a slip in the amount of NH3 in the exhaust
gas has occurred based on whether the signal indicates a change in the
amount of NOx by more than a predetermined amount” (hereinafter, “the
2
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,899
slip determining step”). Final Act. 2—3; see also Adv. Act. 2 (filed Nov. 21,
2013); and Ans. 2—3. Appellants assert that van Nieuwstadt does not
disclose the slip determining step and, more specifically, fails to disclose
assessing whether the amount of NOx in the exhaust gas has changed by
more than a predetermined amount. Appeal Br. 5—7; see also Reply Br. 5—8.
For the reasons that follow, we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
Without explanation, the Examiner first identifies van Nieuwstadt’s
column 5, lines 8—50, and Figure 3, as showing the slip determining step.
Final Act. 3,4. In response, Appellants’ properly point out that, at those
locations, van Nieuwstadt describes “a technique for determining whether
the output sensor [26] is indicating change in urea or change in NOx.”
Appeal Br. 5. Because practical automotive NOx sensors are responsive to
both NOx and urea (or urea’s byproduct NFf), van Nieuwstadt teaches a
detection method that “enables differentiation between the presence of urea
and NOx by a sensor which is itself unable to differentiate between urea and
NOx and to provide therefrom a control signal to optimize the injection of
the reactant into the substance.” van Nieuwstadt 1:66—2:4. At column 5,
lines 8—50, and Figure 3, van Nieuwstadt describes a detection method that
changes the amount of urea injected into the system and, based on whether
the sensor produces a voltage with a corresponding direction of change,
determines whether the sensor is measuring urea/NH3 or NOx. For example,
the processor determines whether the direction of the change in
output signal V(t) of the sensor 26 is the same as, or opposite to,
the direction of the change in injected urea u(t). . . . [I]f they are
the same direction, the sensor 26 is detecting urea whereas if the
directions are opposite one another the sensor 26 is detecting
NOx.
3
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,899
Id. at 5:34-40. Thus, rather than establishing an amount of change in NOx
and comparing that value to a predetermined value, as required by the slip
determining step of claim 17, van Nieuwstadt teaches to look at the direction
of change that an increase or decrease in urea causes to occur in the output
voltage of an exhaust sensor 26, which indicates whether the sensor is
measuring urea/NH3 or NOx (e.g., whether the voltage output increases with
added urea or decreases with added urea, where an increase indicates the
sensor is measuring urea/NH3 and a decrease indicates the sensor is
measuring NOx).
The Examiner next identifies van Nieuwstadt’s column 7, lines 34—37
and 46—60, and Figure 5, as showing the slip determining step, again without
any explanation. Adv. Act. 2. We agree with Appellants’ characterization
of these van Nieuwstadt citations as relating to the control of the operation
of a urea injector (e.g., urea injector 16). Appeal Br. 7. van Nieuwstadt
states, at column 7, lines 39-44,
Output signals noxl, nox2 . . . produced by sensors 60, 26
respectively are processed by a programmed processor 12', in a
manner to be described, to produce the urea injection signal to
urea injector 16.
Although van Nieuwstadt indicates “part of the output nox2 is due to urea
slip,” at column 7, lines 44-45, the Examiner does not explain why a skilled
artisan would recognize van Nieuwstadt’s description for controlling the
urea injector necessarily includes an evaluation of the amount of NOx in the
exhaust gas compared to a predetermined amount to determine whether a
slip in the amount of NH3 in the exhaust gas has occurred. The remark by
van Nieuwstadt regarding “urea slip” appears to be a presumption, rather
4
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,899
than a determination based on whether the measured amount of NOx has
changed more than a predetermined amount.
Finally, in the Answer, the Examiner identifies support from
van Nieuwstadt column 3, lines 1—8 and 24—28, column 4, lines 9—20,
column 7, lines 44^45, and column 8, lines 19—25, 33—50, and 59-61. Ans.
2—3. Having studied these citations to van Nieuwstadt, we again agree with
Appellants’ characterization of them as failing to evidence an evaluation of
the amount of NOx against a predetermined amount to determine whether a
slip in the amount of NH3 in the exhaust gas has occurred. See Appeal Br.
5—8; see also Reply Br. 5—8.
In particular, the Examiner finds, “[i]n van Nieuwstadt, the amount of
change in NOx is nox2_hp which is given as an expression on lines 19—25 of
col. 8,” which is used to define a normalized change of NOx amount, dydu.
Ans. 2—3. Further, the Examiner points out that a positive value for dydu
indicates “the amount of urea (NH3) addition to the catalyst (20) should be
reduced.” Id. at 3 (citing van Nieuwstadt 8:59-61). According to the
Examiner, this shows, “van Nieuwstadt clearly discloses determining an
amount of change in NOx, and if the change in NOx is greater than a
predetermined value, an urea (NH3) slip has been determined to occur.” Id.
A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s
finding. Although van Nieuwstadt states nox2_hp represents a change in the
output signal produced by sensor 26 (van Nieuwstadt 8:19-22), we agree
with Appellants that this is not the same thing as suggesting nox2_hp
represents a change in the amount of NOx. Instead, we understand the
change to be simply a change in the voltage output, which is multiplied with
the change in urea and normalized (i.e., divided) by noxl, to determine
5
Appeal 2014-009339
Application 12/578,899
dydu. See van Nieuwstadt 8:18—64. If the changes to the amount of urea
and voltage output of nox2_hp is in the same direction, which is indicated by
a positive dydu result, then the sensor is reacting to urea/NH3 and the
amount or urea should be reduced; whereas, if the changes are in different
directions, which is indicated by a negative dydu result, then the sensor is
reacting to NOx and the amount of urea should be increased. Id. at 8:59-64;
see also id. at 5:21—30. Rather than determining slip in the amount of NH3
in the exhaust gas has occurred by comparing a measured amount of NOx
change against a predetermined amount of NOx, van Nieuwstadt presumes
there is NH3 slip if the voltage output of sensor 26 changes in the same
direction as the amount of urea being supplied to the system is changed.
While van Nieuwstadt and the claimed invention have a similar
purpose (i.e., determining NH3 slip), the Examiner has not established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that van Nieuwstadt accomplishes that
purpose using the same steps recited by the method of claim 17. Therefore,
for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 17, and claims 18, 19, and 22 depending therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—19 and 22.
REVERSED
6