Ex Parte Perrin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612369215 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) 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. 12/369,215 02/11/2009 James M. Perrin P006365-PTE-CD 3433 74175 7590 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM) P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 EXAMINER SHEPPARD, JASON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): 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 JAMES M. PERRIN and STEPHEN PAUL LEVIJOKI Appeal 2015-002107 Application 12/369,215 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE James M. Perrin and Stephen Paul Levijoki (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—10 and 20—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sindano (US 2009/0301066 Al; pub. Dec. 10, 2009); and Shaikh (US 2008/0178575 A1; pub. July 31, 2008). Claims 11—19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-002107 Application 12/369,215 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a diagnostic system “for selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems based on NOx sensor feedback.” Spec. para. 2, Figs. 1, 6. Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system comprising: a first sensor that determines a first concentration of NOx and NH3 based on a measurement taken upstream of a catalyst; a second sensor that determines a second concentration of NOx and NH3 based on a measurement taken downstream of the catalyst; and a first electronic circuit configured to: compare the first and second concentrations; determine whether a catalyst fault occurred in the catalyst based on the comparison between the first and second concentrations; and determine whether a dosing agent fault occurred in a dosing agent that is injected upstream of the catalyst of an SCR device based on the comparison between the first and second concentrations; wherein the catalyst fault and the dosing agent fault indicate a quality of the dosing agent. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 calls for, in relevant part, a first electronic circuit configured to “determine whether a catalyst fault occurred in the catalyst based on the comparison between the first and second concentrations.” Appeal Br. 19, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Shaikh for this limitation. See Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 4—6. In particular, the Examiner finds: 2 Appeal 2015-002107 Application 12/369,215 Shaikh discloses that a concentration of NOx in the exhaust can be used to determine [(catalyst)] conversion efficiency (see par. [0026] of Shaikh), and one having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that this corresponds to either a measured or a modeled engine-out (i.e., upstream) NOx value. Shaikh further teaches that a (downstream/second) NOx sensor can then be used to determine the [(catalyst)] conversion efficiency (also par. [0026]). Ans. 5—6; see also Final Act. 4. Additionally, the Examiner states that Shaikh is relied upon “to clearly establish that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Instant invention would know how to use a change in . . . catalyst conversion efficiency to determine the source of [(a catalyst)] fault in an SCR system.” Ans. 4. Appellants contend that Shaikh fails to disclose “a fault is determined in a catalyst. . . based on [(a comparison between)] two separate determined concentrations of NOx.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 9. According to Appellants, Shaikh “discloses the degraded performance may include catalyst aging when the NOx concentration leaving the SCR catalyst changes slowly over time.” Id. at 12—13; see also Reply Br. 9. Independent claim 1 recites the steps of determining whether a catalyst fault has occurred based on a comparison between first and second concentrations and determining whether a dosing agent fault has occurred based on a comparison between first and second concentrations. See Appeal Br. 19, Claims App.; see also Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner that Shaikh discloses the step of determining whether a dosing agent fault occurred in a dosing agent based on a comparison between first 3 Appeal 2015-002107 Application 12/369,215 and second concentrations.1 See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4—5. The Examiner relies on paragraph 26 of Shaikh for disclosing the step of determining whether a catalyst fault has occurred based on a comparison between first and second concentrations. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5— 6. In paragraph 26, Shaikh discloses: In some embodiments, an operating condition may be a conversion efficiency of the emission control system. Further, conversion efficiency of the emission control system may be determined based on a concentration of NOx leaving the SCR catalyst.... For example, a concentration of NOx detected in the exhaust may be used to determine a conversion efficiency of the emission control system. ... As such, the NOx sensor . . . may be used to determine a conversion efficiency of the emission control system. Shaikh, para. 26 (emphasis added). Throughout paragraph 26, Shaikh references a single concentration of NOx leaving the SCR catalyst (single NOx sensor) being used to determine a conversion efficiency of the emission control system. Shaikh fails to disclose that more than one concentration of NOx is used to determine a (catalyst) conversion efficiency of the emission control system, let alone, that two concentrations of NOx are compared to determine a (catalyst) conversion efficiency of the emission control system. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 1 Shaikh discloses that “the controller may be able to compare an operating condition before a refill event [(a first concentration)] to an operating condition after a refill event [(a second concentration)] so as to detect a change in performance [(dosing agent fault)] in response to a refill event.... As such, a drop in performance [(dosing agent fault)] subsequent to a refill event may indicate a condition where an ineffective fluid, or partially ineffective fluid, may be introduced to the reductant storage tank” (i.e., a reductant (dosing agent) of reduced reductant quality may be introduced to the reductant storage tank). See Shaikh, para. 28. 4 Appeal 2015-002107 Application 12/369,215 that Shaikh discloses the step of determining whether a catalyst fault occurred in the catalyst based on a comparison between first and second concentrations. Accordingly, for the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2—10 and 20-22 as unpatentable over Sindano and Shaikh. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—10 and 20-22 as unpatentable over Sindano and Shaikh. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation