Ex Parte Sato et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2009

11078487 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HITOSHI SATO, NOBUYUKI HIRAKI and TAKEHITO IMAI
____________________

Appeal 2009-002668
Application 11/078,487
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: October 26, 2009
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hitoshi Sato et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 1-6, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2009-002668
Application 11/078,487

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an exhaust gas
purification system for a diesel and other internal combustion engines (Spec.
1: ¶ [0001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A control method of an exhaust gas
purification system, in an internal combustion
engine mounted on a vehicle provided with a
continuous regeneration-type diesel particulate
filter device and an exhaust throttle valve in an
exhaust gas passage thereof,
composed to comprise a diesel particulate
filter control means having a regeneration timing
judgment means for judging the regeneration start
timing of said continuous regeneration-type diesel
particulate filter device and a regeneration means
for regenerating the continuous regeneration-type
diesel particulate filter device by forcibly burning
collected particulate matters by raising the exhaust
gas temperature;
wherein the regeneration control is
suspended, a multi injection control is performed,
and the exhaust throttle valve is closed, when
detecting a stop condition of the vehicle during the
regeneration control of the continuous
regeneration-type diesel particulate filter device by
the regeneration means.

Appeal 2009-002668
Application 11/078,487

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability1:
Fujita US 2004/0231323 A1 Nov. 25, 2004
Otake US 7,062,906 B2 Jun. 20, 2006

The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Otake.
2. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Otake in view of Fujita.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Otake describes that the regeneration control is suspended when detecting a
stop condition during the regeneration control as called for in independent
claims 1, 3 and 5 (Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 14, 20).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Otake does not describe that a stop condition
is detected during regeneration control (App. Br. 14). Appellants further

1 The Examiner has also listed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,595,580 (Kawamura),
6,357,225 (Tanaka), 6,843,054 (Taylor), 6,865,883 (Gomulka), and
6,966,179 (Onodera) as references under the section Evidence Relied Upon
(Ans. 2-3). However, none of the rejections on appeal have been based on
Kawamura, Tanaka, Taylor, Gomulka and Onodera. Therefore, Kawamura,
Tanaka, Taylor, Gomulka and Onodera will not be considered as references
in this appeal.
Appeal 2009-002668
Application 11/078,487

4
contend that Otake does not describe that the regeneration control is
suspended during the regeneration control (Reply Br. 6).
The Examiner found that Otake describes that the stop condition is
detected during regeneration control (Ans. 3-5, 7). In support of the finding,
the Examiner further found that Otake describes two regeneration controls:
(1) a first regeneration control, steps S1-S3 and S11, and (2) a second
regeneration control, steps S4-S10 (Ans. 7). Still further, the Examiner
found that during steps S1-S3 and S11 (the first regeneration control), Otake
detects a low load region. In addition, the Examiner found that since an
engine is in a low load region during stop or idle conditions, Otake detects a
low load region during regeneration control (Ans. 7). The Examiner further
found that Otake suspends regeneration control, step S3 – ‘yes’ (Ans. 4).
Otake describes two filter regeneration controls: (1) a first filter
regeneration control, step S11 (col. 5, ll. 36-40 and cl. 1 (col. 6, ll. 17-20));
and (2) a second filter regeneration control, steps S8-S10 (col. 4, ll. 50-53
and cl. 1 (col. 1, ll. 21-25)). Otake does not describe steps S1-S3 as being
performed during the first filter regeneration control.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding that
steps S1-S3 are part of the first regeneration control is inconsistent with
Otake (App. Br. 15-16).
We find that in Otake, no stop conditions are detected during the first
regeneration control, step S11, or during the second regeneration control,
steps S8-S10. We find that in Otake, no suspension of the first regeneration
control occurs during the first regeneration control, step S11, and no
suspension of the second regeneration control occurs during the second
regeneration control, steps S8-S10.
Appeal 2009-002668
Application 11/078,487

5
Therefore, Otake does not describe that the regeneration control is
suspended when detecting a stop condition during the regeneration control
as called for in claims 1, 3 and 5.
Accordingly, Otake does not anticipate claim 5.
The Examiner has not relied on Fujita for any teaching that would
remedy the deficiency in Otake (Ans. 7). We thus conclude that the
Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 1-4 and 6 over Otake in view of
Fujita.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in finding that
Otake describes that the regeneration control is suspended when detecting a
stop condition during the regeneration control as called for in claims 1, 3 and
5.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005