Ex Parte Bouvier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2017

13639434 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2017)

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.
13/639,434 12/21/2012 Damien Bouvier BOSC.P7420US/11603072 1143
24972 7590 04/19/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAMIEN BOUVIER
and JOERG LINKE
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 14—16 and 18—27. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 14, 23, 24, and 27 are independent. Claim 14 is reproduced
below.
14. A method for operating an internal combustion
engine in a catalytic converter heating operation, the internal
combustion engine being able to be operated in a normal
operation, the method comprising:
ascertaining a first exhaust gas temperature reading which
gives an exhaust gas temperature of exhaust gas in a first
catalytic converter; and
operating the internal combustion engine in a first
operating mode, in which, in contrast to normal operation,
exhaust gas, having an increased exhaust gas temperature, is
exhausted from at least one cylinder of the internal combustion
engine, as long as the first exhaust gas temperature reading has
not reached a specified first temperature threshold value;
wherein, in the first operating mode, the internal
combustion engine is operated so that no uncombusted fuel gets
into an exhaust gas removal section.
REJECTIONS1
Claims 14—16, 18—21, and 23—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gonze (US 7,818,960 B2, iss. Oct. 26, 2010)
and Kraemer (US 5,479,775, iss. Jan. 2, 1996).2
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gonze, Kraemer, and Stroh (US 7,926,263 B2, iss. Apr. 19, 2011).
1 The Examiner withdrew the following rejections: (1) claims 18—22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; (2) claims 18—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph; and (3) claims 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ruth (US 2008/0104945 Al, pub. May 8, 2008).
See Ans. 3.
2 We treat the listing of claim 17 with this rejection as a typographical error,
because it was cancelled and no findings are provided. Final Act. 8—10.
2
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
ANALYSIS
Claims 14—16, 18—21, and 22—27
as unpatentable over Gonze and Kraemer
The sole issue for our consideration is whether Kraemer discloses a
first operating mode in which “the internal combustion engine is operated so
that no uncombusted fuel gets into an exhaust gas removal section.” Each of
independent claims 14, 23, 24, and 27 recites this feature. The Examiner
relies on Kraemer to teach this feature based on the disclosure of an early
supplementary injection that takes place after ignition top dead center when
combustion from the primary injection is at least largely complete so that:
The combustion chamber temperatures must be high enough
that the amount of fuel to be supplementarily injected bums as
completely as possible. This additionally introduced amount of
fuel serves exclusively for the desired increasing of the exhaust
temperature before the catalytic converter.
Kraemer, 2:1—6; Final Act. 8—9 (citing Kraemer, 1:50—2:6); Ans. 3. The
Examiner explains that “[tjhose skilled in the art would have known that the
prior art in mode one provides no uncombusted fuel entering the exhaust as
it is both stated that the fuel is burned as completely as possible and serves
‘exclusively for the desired increasing of the exhaust temperature’ (Col 2,
Line 1—6).” Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Gonze or
Kraemer of the absence of uncombusted fuel in the exhaust gas removal
section. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants also argue that the disclosure in Kraemer
that the supplementarily-injected fuel “bums as completely as possible” does
not mean that supplemented fuel completely bums or that no uncombusted
fuel remains in the chamber after the main combustion. Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
The Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to
modify Gonze to include a first operating mode that increases exhaust gas
temperature from at least one cylinder to heat a catalyst to an activation
temperature without uncombusted fuel getting into an exhaust gas removal
section, as recited in independent claims 1, 23, 24, and 27, is supported by a
preponderance of evidence and a rational underpinning. See Final Act. 8—9.
Kraemer teaches an early supplemental injection mode of operation in
which fuel is injected after top dead center and bums “as completely as
possible” so the “fuel serves exclusively for the desired increasing of the
exhaust temperature before the catalytic converter.” Kramer, 1:62—2:6
(emphasis added). Kraemer also teaches a late supplemental injection mode
of operation in which fuel is injected even later after top dead center so the
fuel does not bum, but instead evaporates, cracks, and mixes with the air and
combustion gases and flows to an exhaust treatment device. Id. at 2:7—17.
Kramer explains that early and late supplemental injections may be
combined. “[T]he point in time of the supplementary injection is chosen
such that only part of the supplementarily[-]injected fuel is burned, and the
exhaust temperature increases and the residual fuel remains unbumed and
. . . is available as a prepared reduction agent in the catalytic converter.” Id.
at 4:17—24. This disclosure teaches and conveys to skilled artisans that early
and late supplemental injections are distinguished by whether all or only a
part of the supplemental injection of fuel is burned. An early supplemental
injection is chosen at a point in time where all of the fuel is burned. A late
supplemental injection is chosen at a point in time where supplemental fuel
is not combusted. A combined early and late supplemental injection occurs
at a point where only part of the supplemental fuel is combusted.
4
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
Kraemer’s teaching that an early supplemental injection introduces an
amount of fuel that “serves exclusively for the desired increasing of the
exhaust temperature before the catalytic converter” provides evidence and a
rational underpinning to support the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to combust the fuel completely to heat the exhaust to a
desired temperature in an early supplemental injection mode. Ans. 3 (citing
Kraemer, 2:3—5). A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that Kraemer teaches that early supplemental injection combusts all
of the fuel so no uncombusted fuel gets into an exhaust removal section or
the catalytic converter. It would have been obvious to choose an injection
point for complete combustion of fuel and maximum heating of exhaust gas.
Kraemer’s disclosure of a combined early and late supplemental
injection method in which the injection point in time is chosen so that only
part of the supplemental fuel injection fuel is burned to increase the exhaust
temperature while other residual fuel remains unbumed (Kraemer, 4:17—24)
teaches that early supplemental injection, by itself, combusts all of the
supplemental fuel to heat the exhaust gas, but late supplemental injection
does not combust the fuel completely so some unbumed fuel reaches the
catalytic converter. It also teaches that it is known to select an injection
point to achieve total or partial burning of supplemental fuel, as desired.
Moreover, even if Kraemer’s disclosure at column 2, lines 1—6 could
be understood to teach that an early supplemental injection may or may not
completely combust all of the fuel, such teaching merely provides a range of
combustion from complete to less than complete. This range overlaps the
claimed complete combustion at an end point to create a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
5
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
Appellants do not present evidence of unexpected results to rebut the
Examiner’s obviousness determination. See Appeal Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 1—2.
Instead, Appellants appear to claim this feature to generate the very expected
result that all of the fuel is combusted to maximize the amount of heat that is
generated in the exhaust gas and thereby provided to the catalytic converter.
See Substitute Spec. 11:25—12:4. Like Kraemer, Appellants also disclose an
afterinjection in which the fuel is injected so late that it does not bum in the
cylinder, but passes uncombusted to oxidize in catalytic converter 9. Id. at
12:6—10. We do not interpret the claims to encompass this afterinjection
embodiment.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that Kraemer teaches and/or suggests early supplemental injection
of fuel to heat exhaust gas and a downstream catalytic converter by burning
the fuel completely to maximize heating. Nor do Appellants persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to
modify Gonze with this teaching to eliminate the need for a heating device.
We sustain the rejection of independent claims 14, 23, 24, and 27. As
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any dependent claims, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18—21, 25, and 26. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 22 as unpatentable
over Gonze, Kraemer, and Stroh
Appellants argue that claim 22 is patentable for the same reasons as
claim 20 from which claim 22 depends. Appeal Br. 6. Because we sustain
the rejection of claims 14 and 20, this argument is not persuasive, and we
also sustain the rejection of claim 22.
6
Appeal 2015-006684
Application 13/639,434
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 14—16 and 18—27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7