Ex Parte Marlett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 14, 2012

11172416 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CHAD E. MARLETT and JULIAN C. TAN
________________

Appeal 2009-012840
Application 11/172,416
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, STEFAN STAICOVICI and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19. The Examiner rejects 2
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moraal (US 3
6,574,956 B1, issued Jun. 10, 2003); claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 under 354

1 The Appellants identifies GM Global Technology Operations, Inc. as
the real party in interest.
Appeal No. 2009-012840
Application No. 11/172,416

2
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohtake (US 6,931,842 B2, 1
issued Aug. 23, 2005), Moraal and Schaller (US 6,948,311 B2, issued Sep. 2
27, 2005); and claims 7-10, 17 and 18 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable 3
over Ohtake, Moraal, Schaller and Appellants’ admission by silence that 4
it is well known to those [with] ordinary skill in 5
the art that the post injection value in Ohtake et al. 6
is also determined from a cylinder number, a 7
desired air-fuel ratio, a minimum oxygen value, 8
and a constant, wherein the constant can be 9
selectable based on a desired unit 10
(Ans. 7). Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 11
U.S.C. § 6(b). 12
We REVERSE. 13
Claims 1, 11 and 19 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of 14
the claims on appeal: 15
1. A post injection control system for 16
regulating diesel particulate regeneration of a 17
diesel particulate filter (DPF) with a diesel engine, 18
comprising: 19
a mass airflow sensor that generates a mass 20
airflow signal; 21
a temperature sensor that senses the 22
temperature of exhaust and generates an exhaust 23
temperature signal; and 24
a control module that determines a post 25
injection value based on transient engine operating 26
conditions and that commands post injection at the 27
post injection value determined from said mass 28
airflow signal and at a post injection rate 29
determined from said exhaust temperature signal. 30
Claim 11 recites a method of regulating post injection in a diesel 31
engine for diesel particulate regeneration. The method includes the step of : 32
Appeal No. 2009-012840
Application No. 11/172,416

3
during said transient operation of said diesel 1
engine: . . . 2
determining a post injection value 3
based on said mass airflow; 4
determining a post injection rate 5
based on said temperature; and 6
commanding post injection according 7
to said post injection value and said 8
post injection rate. 9
Claim 19 recites a post injection control system for regulating diesel 10
particulate regeneration of a diesel particulate filter (DPF) with a diesel 11
engine. The system includes “a control module that determines a post 12
injection value based on at least one of transient engine operating conditions 13
and steady state engine operating conditions and that commands post 14
injection at the post injection value determined from said mass airflow 15
signal.” 16
The Appellants do not formally define either the term “post injection 17
value” or the term “post injection rate” in the Specification. Nevertheless, 18
the equations in Figures 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s drawings suggest that the 19
post injection value is an ideal amount of post injected fuel capable of 20
reacting at a desired air-to-fuel ratio with the air flow left after the 21
combustion stroke. (See also Spec., para. [0024] and [0025]). 22
Ohtake describes a method for controlling the regeneration of a diesel 23
particulate filter (“DPF”) for a diesel engine. When Ohtake’s controller 31 24
determines that the DPF 41 requires regeneration but that the deceleration of 25
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined deceleration over a sufficient time delay 26
period, the controller determines whether post-injection is the most effective 27
means for raising exhaust temperature to regenerate the DPF. (Ohtake, col. 28
Appeal No. 2009-012840
Application No. 11/172,416

4
4, ll. 39-60; col. 7, ll. 27-56; col. 8, ll. 20-27; and col. 9, ll. 14-26). If the 1
controller determines that post-injection is the most effective means for 2
raising exhaust temperature to regenerate the DPF, the controller calculates a 3
post injection amount from the engine rotation speed and the amount of the 4
main injection using a map or table stored in a memory. (Ohtake, col. 9, ll. 5
39-45). Ohtake teaches that, “[u]nder different running conditions, this map 6
specifies the post-injection amount for controlling the exhaust gas 7
temperature to [a lower] second target temperature tTexh2.” (Ohtake, col. 9, 8
ll. 45-48). The Examiner finds that Ohtake does not describe determining a 9
post injection value from a mass airflow. (See Ans. 4). 10
Moraal describes a system for interrupting the regeneration of a DPF 11
10 to prevent overheating. (Moraal, col. 3, ll. 59-61). In this system, a mass 12
flow rate controller 22 responds to the difference between a desired mass air 13
flow rate and a measured air flow rate. The desired mass air flow rate is 14
computed in a module 20 based on a desired air/fuel ratio, an amount of 15
injected fuel and the engine rotation speed. (Moraal, col. 4, ll. 3-11). The 16
system uses the output of the flow rate controller 22 to control an exhaust 17
gas recovery (“EGR”) valve (Moraal, col. 4, ll. 11-13) and not a post 18
injection amount. Even assuming for purposes of this appeal only that 19
Moraal inherently determines a post injection value (see Ans. 9 and 11), 20
Moraal does not describe how this determination is made. Moraal does not 21
appear to determine a post injection value from the difference between the 22
desired mass air flow rate and the measured air flow rate. (See App. Br.2 9). 23

2 The abbreviation “App. Br.” refers to the Corrected Appeal Brief on
Behalf of Appellants dated April 22, 2008.
Appeal No. 2009-012840
Application No. 11/172,416

5
Moraal does not describe a system in which a control module 1
commands post injection at the post injection value determined from said 2
airflow. Since Moraal does not teach a system including each limitation of 3
claim 19 (see id.), we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under § 102(b) 4
as being anticipated by Moraal. 5
In fact, neither Ohtake nor Moraal describes a system in which a 6
control module commands post injection at the post injection value 7
determined from said airflow. The Examiner fails to articulate reasoning 8
independent of an erroneous finding that Moraal does describe this feature to 9
explain why the subject matter of claim 1 or claim 11 would have been 10
obvious. (See Ans. 5 and 10-11). The Examiner cites Schaller as teaching 11
“that it is conventional in the art to intermittently inject a post injection fuel 12
during a third phase of a filter regeneration process (i.e. starting at time t3) 13
in order to control a temperature of the filter to a desired range (also see 14
claims 1, 4, and 5).” (Ans. 5). This teaching does not remedy the 15
deficiencies in the combined teachings of Ohtake and Moraal. (See App. Br. 16
6-8). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 under 17
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohtake, Moraal and Schaller. 18
The admitted prior art cited by the Examiner against claims 7-10, 17 19
and 18 does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of 20
Ohtake, Moraal and Schaller. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-21
10, 17 and 18 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohtake, Moraal, 22
Schaller and the Appellants’ admission. 23
24
Appeal No. 2009-012840
Application No. 11/172,416

6
DECISION 1
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11 and 2
13-19. 3
4
REVERSED 5
6
7
8
9
Klh 10