Ex Parte Chiffey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2017

13042960 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 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.
13/042,960 03/08/2011 Andrew Francis Chiffey ROY/1923US/ADN 7952
94591 7590
Johnson Matthey Inc.
435 Devon Park Dr.
Suite 600
Wayne, PA 19087-1998
06/19/2017 EXAMINER
LARGI, MATTHEW THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2017 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):
J ohnsonMattheyIP @ matthey. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW FRANCIS CHIFFEY and
GAVIN MICHAEL BROWN
Appeal 2015-005221
Application 13/042,9601
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5, and 9-15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed “invention relates to an exhaust gas
aftertreatment system for a diesel-engined vehicle, which system comprising
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Johnson Matthey
Public Limited Company. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-005221
Application 13/042,960
a NOx Storage Catalyst (NSC) followed in a downstream direction by a
Catalysed Soot Filter (CSF).” (Spec. 1,11. 3-5.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal. It recites:
1. An exhaust gas aftertreatment system for a diesel-engined
vehicle, which system comprising a NOx Storage Catalyst (NSC)
followed in a downstream direction by a Catalysed Soot Filter
(CSF), wherein the CSF comprises an oxidative catalyst
composition comprising a palladium-rich weight ratio of
platinum and palladium and an oxygen storage component in an
amount of 20-50 weight %, and wherein:
(a) the CSF comprises a wall flow filter comprising inlet
channels and outlet channels, wherein the inlet channels
comprise a platinum-based oxidative catalyst and the outlet
channels comprise the palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst; or
(b) the CSF has an inlet zone defined by an inlet end of the
CSF and outlet zone defined at a downstream end by an outlet
end of the CSF, wherein the inlet zone comprises a platinum-
based oxidative catalyst, and the outlet zone comprises the
oxidative catalyst composition.
REJECTION
Claims 1—3, 5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Grubert (US 2010/0180581 Al, pub. July 22, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, citing claim 1 of Grubert, that
Grubert teaches that its palladium component is substantially
free of an oxygen storage component. Thus, the palladium
component of Grubert is not equivalent to the palladium-rich
Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst composition of the present invention
which comprises a palladium-rich weight ratio of platinum and
2
Appeal 2015-005221
Application 13/042,960
palladium and an oxygen storage component in an amount of 20-
50 weight %.
(Appeal Br. 3, emphasis omitted.)
The Examiner disagrees and finds that
Grubert discloses the 1 st oxygen storage layer (LO) containing
30 g/ft3 (0.01736 g/in3) Pd, 0.75 g/in3 Oxygen storage compound,
0.75 g/in3 high porous alumina which is a catalyst compound
layer (LO) consisting of 1.2 weight % of a Platinum group metal
(i.e.-Platinum, Palladium, or a Platinum and Palladium
combination), 49.4 weight % Oxygen storage compound, and
49.4 weight % high porous alumina (See Grubert, Paragraph
[0165]).
(Answer 4.)
Appellants are correct that claim 1 of Grubert recites “a palladium-
containing layer that comprises the palladium component, . . . and is
substantially free of an oxygen storage component.” (Grubert, claim 1.)
However, the disclosure of Grubert is not limited to the invention of its
claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner that Grubert also discloses a three
layer catalyst comprising a first layer as described above by the Examiner.
(See Answer 4, citing Grubert 1165.) Therefore, we are not persuaded that
Grubert does not teach a component comprising “a palladium-rich weight
ratio of platinum and palladium and an oxygen storage component in an
amount of 20-50 weight %,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further argue that “Grubert does not disclose its layered
DOC [diesel oxidation catalyst] composite on the outlet zone (or outlet
channels) of its CSF, and a separate Pt-based oxidative catalyst on the inlet
zone (or inlet channels) - as required by Appellants’ claimed invention.”
(Appeal Br. 4.)
3
Appeal 2015-005221
Application 13/042,960
The Examiner, however, finds that Grubert discloses that
the layer (LO) is coated throughout the catalyzed soot filter on
both the inlet zone (inlet channels) and the outlet zone (out
channels) of the filter (See Grubert, Paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, Grubert discloses an outlet zone comprising the
palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst composition. Grubert
discloses at least one layer (LC) comprising at least one
catalytically active Platinum group metal (PGM) component
coated on top or beneath the layer (LO). The at least one layer
(LC) comprises Platinum and Palladium and is coated
throughout the catalyst, thus on both inlet zones (inlet channels)
and outlet zones (outlet channels). Therefore Grubert discloses
an inlet zone comprising a platinum-based oxidative catalyst.
(Answer 3.) In short, Grubert discloses inlet channels comprising a
platinum-based oxidative catalyst and outlet channels comprising a
palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst. To the extent Appellants argue that
there must not be a palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst present in the
inlet channels or that there must not be a platinum-based oxidative catalyst
in the outlet channels, we disagree. Although claim 1 recites that “the inlet
channels comprise a platinum-based oxidative catalyst and the outlet
channels comprise the palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst,” the
“comprises” language of limitation (a) of claim 1 does not require the inlet
channels to be free of palladium-rich Pt:Pd oxidative catalyst or the outlet
channels be free of platinum-based oxidative catalyst. Thus, Appellants’
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and is not
persuasive of error.
Appellants separately argue the patentability of claim 9. Claim 9
recites: “A system according to claim 1, wherein the platinum-based
oxidative catalyst comprises palladium in a platinum-rich Pt:Pd weight
ratio.”
4
Appeal 2015-005221
Application 13/042,960
Appellants argue that “claim 9 requires that the CSF component of the
presently claimed exhaust system has a Pt-rich inlet zone (or inlet channels)
and a Pd-rich outlet zone (or outlet channels).” (Appeal Br. 5.)
The Examiner finds:
The palladium-rich catalyst is coated throughout the catalyzed
soot filter (i.e.-inlet and outlet zones). (See Grubert, Paragraph
[0045]). Additionally, Grubert discloses the layer (LC) coated
on top or beneath layer (LO). The at least one layer (LC)
comprises platinum and palladium and is coated throughout the
catalyst, thus on both inlet zones (inlet channels) and outlet zones
(outlet channels) in a ratio of Pt/Pd in a ratio of 2/1. (See Grubert,
Paragraph [0056]). Accordingly, as both layers (LC and LO) are
coated throughout (on both the catalyst soot filter inlet
zones/channels and outlet zones/channels) Grubert discloses a
platinum-rich inlet zone (or inlet channels) and a Palladium-rich
outlet zone (or channels).
(Answer 5.)
We agree with the Examiner, and Appellants do not persuasively
argue why Grubert’s disclosure of a catalyst composition “compris[ing] Pt
and Pd in a ratio Pt/Pd of around 2/1” does not teach “palladium in a
platinum-rich Pt:Pd weight ratio.” Therefore, we are not persuaded of error.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5, and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5