Ex Parte BRÜCK

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2017

13155426 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
13/155,426 06/08/2011 ROLF BRUCK EM-84921 2986
24131 7590 10/23/2017
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
SHEPPARD, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLF BRUCK
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
Technology Center 3700
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—10, and 12—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for the addition in
droplet form of a liquid reducing agent into an exhaust gas line. Claims 1
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Emitec Gesellschaft fur
Emissionstechnologie mbH (Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for the addition, in droplet form, of a urea solution
as a liquid reducing agent into an exhaust line of an internal
combustion engine, the method comprising the following steps:
a) detecting at least one exhaust-gas parameter during
operation of the internal combustion engine;
b) determining a size of a droplet of the urea solution to be
added as a function of the at least one exhaust-gas parameter;
c) setting a first delivery pressure of the urea solution
flowing towards the exhaust line as a function of the determined
size of the droplet;
d) adding the urea solution into the exhaust line with an
adder;
providing an exhaust-gas treatment component having an
impingement region;
carrying out the step of adding the liquid urea solution
downstream of the exhaust-gas treatment component and counter
to a flow direction of an exhaust gas in the exhaust line; and
setting the size of the droplet to attain a uniform
distribution of the urea solution over the impingement region of
the exhaust-gas treatment component.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Twigg2
Witte-Merl
Gidney
Reusing3
WO 00/021647
US 2008/0041036 A1 Feb. 21,2008
US 2008/0261801 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
WO 2008/080693
2 The Examiner cites the listed PCT application, but refers to related US
patent 6,863,874 B1 (iss. Mar. 8, 2005) in the rejection. Final Act. 4.
3 The Examiner cites the listed PCT application, but refers to related US
patent publication 2010/0319325 A1 (pub. Dec. 23, 2010) in the rejection,
Id. at 10.
2
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
REJECTIONS4’5
Claims 1 and 3—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gidney, Twigg, and Witte-Merl.
Claims 10 and 12—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gidney, Twigg, Witte-Merl, and Reusing.
OPINION
Appellant argues the rejections of all claims together. We select
independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Twigg is incorporated by reference into
Gidney and that Gidney/Twigg teaches “a method for the addition, in droplet
form, of a urea solution . . . into an exhaust line of an internal combustion
engine,” as well as most other features of claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. The
Examiner then finds that Witte-Merl teaches “a method for adding reactant
to an exhaust gas stream . . . that comprises adding the liquid reducing agent
downstream of the exhaust-gas treatment component and counter to a flow
direction of an exhaust gas in the exhaust line.” Id. at 6. The Examiner
determines that the combination of these teachings would have been obvious
“in order to improve evaporation of reductant and reduce reductant slip.” Id.
Appellant argues that Gidney’s incorporation by reference of Twigg is
merely a “generic incorporation” which is unrelated to Gidney’s teachings
“regarding the introduction of droplets of fuel into the exhaust systems.” Br.
4 The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection is withdrawn. Ans. 2.
5 The Examiner’s position concerning the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph to certain claim terms is not a rejection. As the relevance of
the prior art to the claim terms subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is
not contested we decline to reach this matter.
3
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
11. Appellant further argues that “Twigg is not cited in Gidney to describe
different types of liquids (fuel or liquid urea solution) which can be
introduced into an exhaust system and their manner of introduction.” Id. at
10 (emphasis omitted).
When incorporating Twigg, Gidney states: “We also explain in our
WO 00/21647 (incorporated herein by reference) that NOx-specific reactants
can be used to regenerate a NOx-trap.” Gidney 1 5. Twigg teaches that
NOx-specific reactants include urea. Twigg, claims 14—15. This is also
what is relied on in Twigg by the Examiner. Final Act. 5. Thus, we are not
convinced of any errors by the Examiner in relying on Gidney’s
incorporation by reference of Twigg.
Appellant next argues that “one of skill in the art would not have
combined Gidney and Witte-Merl. . . since [they] ... are part of different
technical fields, namely: Gidney is from the technical field of CRT-methods;
and Witte-Merl is from the technical field of SCR-methods.” Br. 11.
Appellant argues that these fields are different and complex. Id. at 11—12.
For example, it is explained that “[hjydrocarbons and urea solution have
very different vaporization temperatures and viscosities. These parameters
have a very strong influence on the distribution of the reducing agent inside
the exhaust system and the formation of the spray.” Id. at 12. Therefore,
Appellant concludes, “a skilled artisan would not have considered the
teaching of Gidney for a device and a method for introducing a urea solution
into an exhaust system,” and Witte-Merl “would [not] have motivated a
skilled person to adapt the teaching of Gidney to the SCR-method.” Id.
While arguing that there are differences between CRT-methods and
SCR-methods, Appellant also recognizes that they are both within “the
4
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
technical field of exhaust-gas cleaning.” Id. at 11—12 (“a person skilled in
the technical field of exhaust-gas cleaning clearly distinguishes between”
CRT-methods and SCR-methods). So while Appellant establishes that there
are differences between CRT-methods and SCR-methods, Appellant does
not establish why one of skill in “the technical field of exhaust-gas cleaning”
would not have found it obvious to use known techniques from one method
in the other method. Further, Appellant does not established why those
differences would adversely impact any suggestion to combine their
teachings, or why the Examiner’s proffered reason to combine is
inappropriate.
Appellant also asserts that the use of Witte-Merl’s liquid urea solution
“in the CRT method performed by Gidney” “would destroy the function of
Gidney” and “would also change the principle of operation of the Gidney
reference and would render the Gidney reference unsuitable for its intended
purpose.” Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). Appellant focuses solely on
Witte-Merl’s use of liquid urea solution. However, Gidney, through its
incorporation by reference of Twigg, already teaches the use of urea as a
NOx-specific reactant. Gidney 1 5; Twigg, claims 14—15. Thus, it is
unclear how something that is taught by Gidney could destroy the function
of Gidney or otherwise render it unsuitable.
Appellant also argues that one “who reads Witte-Merl would
inevitably come to the conclusion that the droplet size has no relevance for
the impingement of the urea solution on the element.” Br. 13. However, the
Examiner relies on Gidney for teachings of the droplet size. Final Act. 5.
Thus, Appellant’s argument is not directed to the rejection. Further,
Appellant provides no evidence or argument concerning what one of skill of
5
Appeal 2016-002205
Application 13/155,426
the art would understand concerning droplet size when considering both
Gidney and Witte-Merl in the manner outlined by the Examiner in the
rejection. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—10, and 12—17 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6