Ex parte NAGY

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 1998

08293630 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 22, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DONALD B. NAGY
____________
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,6301
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 10.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of calibrating
or diagnosing multiple engine exhaust gas analyzers responsive to
constituent gases. The method includes the steps of providing a
blended span gas comprising a known mixture of a zero gas with
the constituent gases, and simultaneously supplying to all of the
analyzers at least one sample of a selected division of the
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
2
blended span gas for obtaining simultaneous readings of the
multiple analyzers for calibration or diagnostic purposes.
Claim 6 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
6. In a method for calibrating or diagnosing multiple
engine exhaust gas analyzers responsive to HC, NOx, CO and CO2
constituent gases, the steps of:
providing a blended span gas comprising a known mixture of a
zero gas with said constituent gases; and
simultaneously supplying to all of said analyzers at least
one sample comprising a selected division of said blended span
gas for obtaining simultaneous readings of the multiple analyzers
for calibration or diagnostic purposes.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Rankine et al. (Rankine) 3,854,876 Dec. 17, 1974
Barcellona et al. (Barcellona) 4,498,496 Feb. 12, 1985
Kimura et al. (Kimura) 5,333,487 Aug. 2, 1994
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Rankine and Barcellona.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 10.
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
The admitted prior art in Figures 3A and 3B teaches “use2
of individual (constituent) gas sensors [14, 12, 42, 44 and 20]
coupled to an engine exhaust line,” and calibration.
3
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 3) that “Kimura
et al. teach (col. 1, lines 11-24) use of individual
(constituent) gas sensors coupled to an engine exhaust line, but2
not calibration.” We also agree with the examiner (Answer, pages
3 and 4) that “Barcellona et al. teach (Abstract; Figs. 1, 3-6)
mixing zero gas T with a second gas source T to provide az s
plurality of different proportions of calibration gases in a
‘sequential’ (Abstract, line 4 from last) manner to calibrate
‘analyzers for exhaust gases from internal combustion engines’
(col. 1, lines 8-9).” Figure 1 of Barcellona more specifically
illustrates an apparatus wherein a zero gas provided to connector
11 and a span gas provided to connector 12 are mixed in varying
amounts in mixing chamber 50 after passing through capillary
tubes 40. Valves 31 control how much of each gas passes through
the capillary tubes 40. Outlet 61 is to an analyzer of exhaust
gases from an internal combustion engine (column 4, lines 14
through 17). Barcellona indicates (column 4, lines 47 through
50) that the Figure 1 apparatus is used for calibration of an
exhaust gas analyzer. The constituent gases of the exhaust gases
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
4
and the manner of supplying the zero gas and span gas to the
analyzer(s) for calibration purposes are not disclosed in
Barcellona.
Rankine discloses a method for calibrating Claus chemical
process analyzers VIII and IX (Figure 2) that are responsive to
carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, respectively. The Rankine
process comprises the steps of providing a blended calibration
gas comprising a known mixture of a zero gas (e.g., nitrogen or
air) with the noted constituent gases (i.e., carbon dioxide and
sulphur dioxide), and serially supplying to the analyzer units
VIII and IX samples of the blended calibration gas for obtaining
a series of serial readings of the multiple analyzers for
calibration or diagnostic purposes (column 9, lines 19 through
61).
It is the examiner’s position (Answer, pages 3 and 4) that:
As to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7; it would have been
obvious to provide a blended gas comprising a known
mixture of constituent gases to calibrate Kimura’s
individual sensors because Rankine et al. (col. 7,
lines 3-24; col. 9, lines 19-29; Figs. 1, 2) teach
supplying a mixture of “carbon dioxide and sulphur
dioxide” (col. 9, line 27) to a carbon dioxide
analyzing unit VIII and sulphur dioxide analyzing unit
1X (col. 7, lines 13-19) that are both positioned in
series, and are located downstream of a combustion unit
(Figs. 1, 2). While Rankine et al. does utilize a zero
gas (“nitrogen” on lines [sic, line] 25 of col. 9) in
the blend (“mixture of nitrogen,...sulphur dioxide” on
line 27 of col. 9), Rankine does not expressly
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
5
(although he possibly does) mix the “zero gas” (col. 9,
line 26) (i.e. nitrogen) with a “carbon dioxide and
sulphur dioxide” (col. 9, line 27) blend to produce the
“nitrogen, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide” (col. 9,
line 27) mixture. It would have been obvious to mix a
blend (Rankine’s “carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide”
mixture; or Kimura’s “blended gas comprising a known
mixture of constituent gases” referred to above) with a
zero gas because Barcellona et al. teach (Abstract;
Figs. 1, 3-6) mixing zero gas T with a second gasz
source T to provide a plurality of differents
proportions of calibration gases in a “sequential”
(Abstract, line 4 from last) manner to calibrate
“analyzers for exhaust gases from internal combustion
engines” (col. 1, lines 8-9).
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 4 and 5) that:
In essence, the Examiner apparently wants to ignore
Barcellona and the admitted prior art which provide
separate span gases, and instead substitute the concept
of a blended span gas drawn from a non-analogous
process [Rankine]. Then the Examiner apparently wants
to reinstate a portion of Barcellona . . . to create a
division of the blended span gas as required by claims
1-5 and 6-10, and sequential samples of the blended
span gas and divisions thereof as required by claims 1-
5. However, nothing in the art would lead one of
ordinary skill to draw upon a non-analogous process in
that manner. Moreover, nothing in the art would lead
one of ordinary skill to select portions of differing
processes in the manner apparently adopted by the
Examiner; such could be done only with the hindsight
benefit of appellant’s disclosure.
We agree. In the absence of impermissible hindsight, the
examiner’s line of reasoning fails to convince us that the
skilled artisan would have arrived at appellant’s claimed
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
6
invention based upon the disparate teachings of the applied prior
art. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 10 is
reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2307
Application No. 08/293,630
7
Charles K. Veenstra
General Motors Corp.
Legal Staff
P.O. Box 33114
Detroit, MI 48232
KWH/jrg
APPEAL NO. 96-2307 - JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPLICATION NO. 08/293,630
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ KRASS
APJ THOMAS
DECISION: REVERSED
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED: 23 Dec 98
FINAL TYPED: