Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11098185 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHUAN HE, RICHARD B. JESS, JAY TOLSMA,
JOHN F. VAN GILDER, and WENBO WANG
____________________

Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-25. App. Br. 3.1 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, 13, and 24 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative:
1. A diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) testing
system, comprising:
a DOC that is located in an exhaust system
of a vehicle; and
a control module that verifies proper
operation of said DOC during a post-fuel injection
process in an engine of said vehicle,
wherein said control module computes a
predicted temperature of exhaust gases at an output
of said DOC that corresponds with proper
operation of said DOC during said post-fuel
injection process, determines an actual temperature
of said exhaust gases during said post-fuel
injection process, and activates an alarm indicator
when said actual temperature exceeds said
predicted temperature by a first predetermined
value.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the following claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the noted combinations of references below:

1Herein, all references to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") are to the
Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on May 11, 2009, and all references to the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") are to the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
mailed September 3, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

3
1. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, and 24 over Schnaibel (US 6,761,023 B1;
iss. Jul. 13, 2004).
2. Claims 5-7 over Schnaibel and Kinugawa (US 7,048,891 B2;
iss. May 23, 2006).
3. Claims 8 and 11 over Schnaibel and Lang (US 6,499,291 B2;
iss. Dec. 31, 2002).
4. Claims 13-16, 21, 22, and 25 over Schnaibel and van
Nieuwstadt (US 6,990,854 B2; iss. Jan. 31, 2006).
5. Claims 17-19 over Schnaibel, van Nieuwstadt, and Kinugawa.
6. Claims 20 and 23 over Schnaibel, van Nieuwstadt, and Lang.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, and 24 – Schnaibel
The Examiner found Schnaibel discloses an oxidation catalyst testing
system comprising an oxidation catalyst (OC) 12, a first temperature sensor
14 downstream of the oxidation catalyst 12 "that generates a post-OC
temperature (curve 17 in Figure 2) of exhaust gases at an output of the OC,"
and a control module 18 that verifies proper operation of the oxidation
catalyst during a post-fuel injection process in a vehicle engine. Ans. 3-4.
The Examiner found that the control module computes a "predicted
temperature (curve 16 in Figure 2)" of exhaust gases at the output of the
oxidation catalyst that corresponds with proper operation of the oxidation
catalyst during the post-fuel injection process, and activates an alarm
indicator "when a difference between the predicted temperature and the post-
OC temperature is greater than a first predetermined value." Ans. 4 (citing
Schnaibel, col. 4, l. 59 – col. 5, l. 4). The Examiner found Schnaibel does
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

4
not disclose a diesel oxidation catalyst, but concluded that this would have
been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 4.
Figure 2 of Schnaibel shows the temperature of exhaust gas emitted
from catalytic converter 12 as a function of time. See Schnaibel, col. 5, ll.
21-22. At approximately time t1, an additional injection of fuel following
combustion results in an additional increase in temperature of the exhaust
gas equivalent to a maximum temperature measured by temperature sensor
14. See Schnaibel, col. 5, ll. 25-31. This maximum temperature becomes
smaller over time due to aging of the catalytic converter 12. See Schnaibel,
col. 5, ll. 31-33. Schnaibel discloses that if the catalytic converter 12 is not
yet aged, then the maximum temperature exceeds a lower threshold value 15
(indicated at 16), but if the catalytic converter 12 no longer has an adequate
conversion capacity, then is it aged, so that the threshold value 15 is no
longer exceeded (indicated at 17). See Schnaibel, col. 5, ll. 35-44.
Among other arguments, Appellants contend that Schnaibel does not
disclose "activating an alarm indicator when an actual temperature of the
exhaust gases exceeds the predicted temperature by a predetermined value."
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants that Schnaibel's
curve 17, which corresponds to an actual temperature increase of an aged
catalytic converter, does not exceed curve 16, which corresponds to a
temperature increase of new catalytic converter. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants also point out that the threshold value (15) in Schnaibel is not a
predicted value that is calculated during operation of the catalytic converter.
App. Br. 11. As the Examiner did not make a finding supported by a
preponderance of the evidence that Schnaibel discloses that its control
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

5
module "activates an alarm indicator," as claimed, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4, 9, and 10.
Claim 12 is directed to a diesel oxidation catalyst testing system and
recites, inter alia, "a control module that communicates with said first
temperature sensor, that receives said post-DOC temperature, and that
verifies proper operation of said DOC during a post-fuel injection process in
an engine of said vehicle," "said control module computes a predicted
temperature of exhaust gases at said output of said DOC that corresponds
with proper operation of said DOC during said post-fuel injection process,"
and "said control module activates an alarm indicator when a difference
between said predicted temperature and said post DOC temperature is
greater than a first predetermined value." Emphasis added.
Appellants contend that Schnaibel does not disclose computing a
predicted temperature and determining an actual temperature of exhaust
gases at an output of a DOC during the same post post-fuel injection process
and of the same DOC (or a DOC in the same condition), and activating an
alarm indicator when the difference between the predicted actual
temperatures is greater than a predetermined value. App. Br. 11-12. We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not make a finding supported
by a preponderance of the evidence that Schnaibel discloses these features.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 24 is directed to a method for testing a diesel oxidation catalyst
in an exhaust system of a vehicle and recites, inter alia, "computing a
predicted temperature of said exhaust gases at said output of the DOC that
corresponds with proper operation of the DOC during a post-fuel injection
process," "computing a difference between said predicted temperature and
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

6
said post-DOC temperature," and "activating an alarm indicator when said
difference is greater than a first predetermined value." For reasons discussed
supra, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 24.
Claims 5-7 – Schnaibel and Kinugawa and
Claims 8 and 11 – Schnaibel and Lang
Claims 5-8 and 11 depend from claim 1. The Examiner's application
of Kinugawa to the rejection of claims 5-7 (Ans. 5-6), and Lang to the
rejection of claims 8 and 11 (Ans. 6-7), does not remedy the deficiencies of
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as discussed supra. We do not sustain
the rejections of claims 5-7 and 8-11.
Claims 13-16, 21, 22, and 25 – Schnaibel and van Nieuwstadt
Claim 13 is directed to a method for testing a diesel oxidation catalyst
in an exhaust system of a vehicle and recites, inter alia, "computing a
predicted temperature of exhaust gases at an output of the DOC that
corresponds with proper operation of the DOC during a post-fuel injection
process via an energy balance function," "determining an actual temperature
of said exhaust gases during said post-fuel injection process," and
"activating an alarm indicator when said difference is greater than a first
predetermined value." The Examiner found Schnaibel does not disclose that
the predicted temperature is based on an energy balance function. Ans. 8.
The Examiner relied on van Nieuwstadt for disclosure regarding predicting a
temperature increase across a catalyst based on an energy balance function.
Id.
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 12-13) that the Examiner's
application of van Nieuwstadt to claim 13 does not remedy the deficiencies
of Schnaibel, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2010-002887
Application 11/098,185

7
rejection of claim 13, and claims 14-16, 21, 22, and 25, which depend from
claim 13.
Claims 17-19 – Schnaibel, van Nieuwstadt, and Kinugawa and
Claims 20 and 23 – Schnaibel, van Nieuwstadt, and Lang
Claims 17-20 and 23 depend from claim 13. The Examiner's
applications of Kinugawa to the rejection of claims 17-19 (Ans. 9-11), and
Lang to the rejection of claims 20 and 23 (Ans. 11-12), do not remedy the
deficiencies of the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. We do not sustain the
rejections of claims 17-19, and claims 20 and 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls