Ex Parte Handa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12451349 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/451,349 11109/2009
25944 7590 09/01/2016
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hideyuki Randa
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
143481 2830
EXAMINER
SHANSKE, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEYUKI RANDA
Appeal 2014-004114
Application 12/451,349
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Hideyuki Randa (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arlt (DE 10 2005 032 941 Al; pub.
1 The Examiner indicates that "[ c ]laims 5, 8 and 11 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims." Final Act. 14 (mailed Feb. 13, 2013). Claims 5, 8, and
11 are not before us for review.
Appeal 2014-004114
Application 12/451,349
July 14, 2005)2 and Hayashi (JP 2003-293747; pub. Oct. 15, 2003)3. An
oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on August 16,
2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to an exhaust emission purifier of
an internal combustion engine that has a catalyst in an exhaust passage and
purifies exhaust gas by the catalyst." Spec. 1:7-10, Figs. 1, 2. Claims 1, 2,
and 3 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An exhaust emission purifier of an internal combustion engine,
comprising a catalyst that is provided in an exhaust system of the
internal combustion engine to purify exhaust gas, and an
electronic control unit,
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to
estimate an amount of accumulated poisoning material in the
catalyst based on an operating state of the engine, and the
electronic control unit is configured to execute a first
regeneration procedure by raising a temperature of the catalyst
up to a first predetermined temperature and lowering an exhaust
air-fuel ratio on condition that an estimated value of the amount
of accumulated poisoning material is equal to or greater than a
predetermined determination value,
2 The Examiner and Appellant acknowledge that any reference to the text of
Arlt is to the corresponding US Patent Application Publication (US
2008/0279742 Al; pub. Nov. 13, 2008). See Final Act. 2; see also Appeal Br.
7 (filed July 12, 2013).
3 Any reference to the text of Hayashi is to the translation submitted by
Appellant on October 12, 2012. See Amendment (filed Oct. 12, 2012); see
also Supplemental Amendment (filed Oct. 25, 2012); Ans. 4.
2
Appeal 2014-004114
Application 12/451,349
the electronic control umt 1s configured to determine
whether a degree of a deviation between the estimated value of
the amount of accumulated poisoning material in the catalyst and
an actual amount of accumulated poisoning material in the
catalyst reaches a predetermined degree, and
when the degree of the deviation reaches the
predetermined degree, the electronic control unit is configured to
execute a second regeneration procedure separately from the first
regeneration procedure by raising the temperature of the catalyst
up to a temperature higher than the first predetermined
temperature and lowering the exhaust air-fuel ratio, so that the
deviation is eliminated upon completion of the second
regeneration procedure.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "the electronic control unit is
configured to determine whether a degree of a deviation between the
estimated value of the amount of accumulated poisoning material in the
catalyst and an actual amount of accumulated poisoning material in the
catalyst reaches a predetermined degree." Appeal Br. App. A, Claims App.
A-1. The Examiner relies on Hayashi for disclosing this limitation. See
Final Act. 2--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that "the electronic control
unit (90) [of Hayashi] is configured to determine whether a degree of a
deviation between the estimated value of the amount of accumulated
poisoning material in the catalyst and an actual amount of accumulated
poisoning material in the catalyst reaches a predetermined degree." Id. at 4
(citing Hayashi, paras. 120, 121 ).
Appellant contends that "Hayashi fails to disclose executing the
second sulfur release procedure when a degree of a deviation between an
3
Appeal 2014-004114
Application 12/451,349
estimated value of poisoning material and an actual poisoning material
reaches a predetermined degree." Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant:
Hayashi discloses that an accumulated amount of sulfur
components SX 1 is released under the condition C, and an
accumulated amount of sulfur components SX2 is released under
the condition A .... However, Hayashi fails to disclose whether
each of the sulfur components SX 1 and the sulfur components
SX2 is an actual accumulated amount or an estimated
accumulated amount. ... Specifically, Hayashi fails to disclose
two types of accumulated amount (i.e., the actual accumulated
amount and the estimated accumulated amount). Moreover,
Hayashi fails to disclose a deviation between the actual
accumulated amount of sulfur component and the estimated
accumulated amount of sulfur component.
Id. at 11-12 (citing Hayashi, para. 98, Fig. 5).
At the outset, the Examiner does not address this argument or
otherwise indicate that Appellant's contention is incorrect. See Ans. 2---6.
The Examiner cites paragraphs 120 and 121 of Hayashi in support of the
disclosure of electronic control unit 90 being configured to determine
whether a degree of a deviation between the estimated value of the amount
of accumulated poisoning material and the actual amount of accumulated
poisoning material reaches a predetermined degree. Final Act. 4. 4
Paragraph 120 of Hayashi discloses nothing regarding an estimated value of
poisoning material and an actual amount of poisoning material, let alone, a
deviation between them. Further, paragraph 121 of Hayashi discloses that
"[ w ]hen it is determined that a predetermined amount of sulfur components
4 The Examiner fails to identify what in Hayashi constitutes the estimated
value of the amount of accumulated poisoning material and the actual amount
of accumulated poisoning material. Final Act. 4.
4
Appeal 2014-004114
Application 12/451,349
that can be released under the condition A has been accumulated in the NOx
catalyst, the ECU [Electronic Control Unit] 90 determines that the second S
release procedure should be started at the current timing." (emphasis
added). In other words, ECU 90 of Hayashi determines that the second S
release procedure (second generation procedure) should be started when a
predetermined amount of sulfur components has accumulated in the NOx
catalyst. We agree with Appellant that "Hayashi fails to disclose a concept
of a deviation between an estimated value of poisoning material and an
actual [amount of] poisoning material." Appeal Br. 11. Consequently, the
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combined teachings of Arlt and Hayashi disclose the device of claim 1.
Independent claims 2 and 3 call for devices and include language
similar to that discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br. App. A, Claims
App. A-1, A-2, A-3. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings
and conclusions for claims 2 and 3 as those discussed above for claim 1. See
Final Act. 2--4. Thus, the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect
to Arlt and Hayashi are deficient for claims 2 and 3 as well.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 as unpatentable over
Arlt and Hayashi.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7,
9, 10, and 12 as unpatentable over Arlt and Hayashi.
REVERSED
5