Ex Parte Kopp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12674457 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/674,457 04/14/2011
77407 7590 04/04/2016
Novak Drnce Connolly Bove+ Quigg LLP
1875 Eye St NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006-5409
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andre Kopp
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.
8369.155.USOOOO 7001
EXAMINER
BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
Peter.Lalos@novakdrnce.com
DCDocket@novakdrnce.com
re nee.tisdale@novakdrnce.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE KOPP
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andre Kopp ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-29, which are all the pending
claims. See Appeal Br. 2, 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Audi AG. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to "a device [and method] for
purifying exhaust gases for an internal combustion engine of a motor
vehicle." Spec. 1. 2 Claims 26 and 28 are independent. Claim 26,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
26. A system for purifying the exhaust gases of an internal
combustion engine comprising:
a first exhaust gas line connected to a first set of
cylinders of said engine, including a catalytic converter
functional to store NOx upon lean operation of said first set of
cylinders;
a second exhaust gas line connected to a second set of
cylinders of said engine, including a catalytic converter
functional to store ammonia; and
means responsive to a selected storage capacity ofNOx in
said first mentioned catalytic converter and a substoichiometric
rich operation of said first set of cylinders for diverting the flow
of gases in said first exhaust gas line downstream of said first
mentioned catalytic converter to said second exhaust line
upstream of said second mentioned catalytic converter.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kinugasa
Hemingway
us 6,047,542
US 2007/0271908 Al
Apr. 11, 2000
Nov. 29, 2007
2 We note that Appellant's Specification does not provide line or
paragraph numbering; accordingly, reference herein is made only to page
numbers.
2
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 26-29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinugasa and
Hemingway. Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 26-29 as a group.
See Appeal Br. 3--4. We select independent claim 26 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims
27-29 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that Kinugasa teaches a system for purifying
internal combustion engine exhaust gases, including a first exhaust gas line
from a first set of engine cylinders, with a catalytic converter that stores NOx
and a second exhaust gas line from a second set of cylinders, with a catalytic
converter that stores ammonia. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also found that
Kinugasa teaches a valve system in which, for a filled NOx storage catalytic
converter, a defined amount of exhaust gas produced by a substoichiometric
rich engine operation flows from the NOx storage catalytic converter to the
ammonia storage catalytic converter. Id. (citing Kinugasa, col. 48,
11. 44--58). Next, the Examiner found that:
Hemingway discloses a NO[x] storage catalytic converter
device that produces ammonia during regeneration operation
where the ammonia is stored on the SCR device to reduce NO[x]
(Par 0014) and a means responsive to a selected storage capacity
of NO[x] in said first mentioned catalytic converter and a
substoichiometric rich operation of said exhaust resulting from
the NO[x] storage capacity (Par 0023-0034) for diverting the
flow of gases in said first exhaust gas line downstream of said
3
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
first mentioned catalytic converter to said second exhaust line
upstream of said second mentioned catalytic converter.
Id. at 3 (italics omitted). The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings
of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the system of
Kinugasa according to Hemmingway' s teachings
such that while LNT (I la) is being regenerated the valve (200b)
is made to flow exhaust along flow path (Fb, Below) so that the
ammonia created by passing rich exhaust over the LNT (I la) is
able to be stored on SCR device (204) to reduce NO[x] and so the
produced ammonia is not wasted on pathway (Fa, Below).
Id. at 3--4 (including annotated Fig. 46 ofKinugasa).
Appellant argues that "Hemingway ... neither discloses nor teaches
the provision for the reduction of the stored N03 in such first exhaust line
and the conveyance of ammonia generated thereby to the catalytic converter
of a second exhaust gas line in the manner of the claimed invention."
Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant asserts that "[ n ]othing in Hemingway
... teaches ... the operation of a set of cylinders of an engine to provide a
reducing agent to a stored N03 to produce ammonia as in the claimed
invention." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument regarding
Hemingway because it attacks the reference individually when the rejection
is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981)).
Here, as the Examiner reiterates, the rejection relies on Kinugasa's
teachings of "the NO[x] trap to pass [exhaust gas] into the SCR device in a
structure equivalent to that of [Appellant]" and "running one set of cylinders
rich to supply excess fuel to the NO[x] trap to regenerate the trap, [such] that
4
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
while the regeneration of the trap is occurring, exhaust may pass into either
branch (202a) or through the crossover into branch (203)." Ans. 3--4. The
rejection relies on Hemingway for teaching "that during the regeneration of
a NO[x] trap by the use of reforming fuel (Par 0008) the NO[x] trap produces
Ammonia as a byproduct of the regeneration (Par 0014)," which is then
"effectively utilized across a downstream SCR device to both further reduce
NO[x] and to prevent ammonia from passing to the atmosphere." Id. at 4.
Thus, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Kinugasa and
Hemingway. Appellant's allegations of differences or shortcomings of
Hemingway alone are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner and therefore do not apprise us of error.
Appellant also argues that "Hemingway ... does not teach any
modification of Kinugasa ... to arrive at the claimed invention." Appeal
Br. 4; see Reply Br. 3. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, to the extent that the argument appears to urge us to apply a strict
teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM") test for obviousness, we note
that rigid application of the TSM test was explicitly disavowed by the
Supreme Court in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 419
(2007). Second, Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's
articulated reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness. Here, the Examiner
provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for the
combination of teachings used in the rejection, as discussed supra. See Final
Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3--4. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's findings or reasoning for the conclusion of obviousness.
5
Appeal2014-004694
Application 12/674,457
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 26, and claims 27-29 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kinugasa and Hemingway.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinugasa and Hemingway.
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