Ex Parte Schnaibel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2009

10364255 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
____________________

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: October 27, 2009
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Robert Bosch
GmbH (Robert Bosch), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

2
claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
References Relied on by the Examiner
Bush et al. (Bush) 5,842,340 Dec. 1, 1998
Kamoto et al. (Kamoto) 2002/0040577 A1 Apr. 11, 2002

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bush.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kamoto or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kamoto.

The Invention
The invention relates to the regulation of the fuel/air ratio of a
combustion process. (Spec. 1:23-25.)
Claim 1 is reproduced below (Claims App’x 1):
A method for regulating a fuel/air ratio of a combustion
process which is operated alternatingly with excess air and air
deficiency, and having at least one catalyst volume in an exhaust gas
of a combustion process which stores oxygen when there is excess
oxygen in the exhaust gas and gives the oxygen off when there is
oxygen deficiency, comprising:

charging the oxygen into the catalyst volume when there is
excess air;

discharging the oxygen from the catalyst volume when there is
an air deficiency;

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

3
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop such that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges determined in an interval
has a predetermined value; and

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, respectively, at least until the
oxygen excess and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive
Nernst probe downstream from the catalyst volume.
B. ISSUES
1. Has Robert Bosch shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Bush discloses the features in claim 29 of:
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop so that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges has a predetermined value;

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, at least until the oxygen excess
and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive probe?

2. Has Robert Bosch shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Bush discloses an “interval” as required by claim 30?
3. Has Robert Bosch shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Kamoto discloses the features in claims 1 and 15 of:
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop such that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges determined in an interval
has a predetermined value; and

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, respectively, at least until the
oxygen excess and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive
Nernst probe downstream from the catalyst volume?

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

4
4. Has Robert Bosch shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Kamoto discloses an “interval” as required by claims 1 and
15?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Bush discloses a system for controlling the oxygen storage level
in a catalytic converter coupled to an engine. (Bush 1:14-16.)
2. Bush states (Bush Abstract):
The estimated oxygen stored by the catalyst is compared to a
predetermined threshold and positive or negative deviations in the
oxygen amount from the threshold is determined. When a positive
deviation from the threshold amount is detected, the air/fuel ratio
flowing into an engine (16) is decreased. Correspondingly, when a
negative deviation is detected, the air/fuel ratio flowing into the
engine (16) is increased. The amount of oxygen stored by the catalyst
is determined by analyzing signals from a first gas sensor (28)
positioned downstream from a catalytic converter and a second gas
sensor (30) positioned downstream from the catalytic converter (34).

3. Bush also discloses that the amount of oxygen flowing into and
out of a catalyst is monitored and actively regulated such that when the
oxygen stored in the catalyst deviates from a predetermined setpoint, such as
50% capacity of the catalyst, the amount of oxygen is restored to that
setpoint. (Bush 10:59-11:7.)
4. Kamoto discloses a system for controlling the air-fuel ratio of
an internal combustion engine. (Kamoto 1: ¶ 0002.)
5. Kamoto’s system includes an exhaust catalyst 19 with upstream
and downstream air-fuel ratio monitoring sensors 25 and 26. (Id. at 3: ¶
0030.)
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

5
6. In Kamoto, the catalyst stores oxygen and includes a lower
threshold A and an upper threshold B that are set for the amount of oxygen
stored, termed O2SUM. (Id. at 3: ¶ 0037.)
7. Kamoto also discloses that lower and upper target values,
respectively A+α and B–ß, are established that lie within the range
established by the threshold values. (Id.)
8. Kamoto states (Id. at 3-4: ¶ 0039):
When the oxygen storage amount O2SUM becomes larger than
the upper threshold B, the air-fuel ratio is controlled to the rich region
(i.e., the oxygen storage amount O2SUM is decreased) until the
oxygen storage amount becomes the upper target storage amount B–ß.
On the other hand, when the oxygen storage amount O2SUM
becomes smaller than the lower threshold A, the air-fuel ratio is
controlled to the lean region (i.e., the oxygen storage amount O2SUM
is increased) until the oxygen storage amount O2SUM becomes the
lower target storage amount A+α. When the oxygen storage amount
O2SUM is between the upper threshold B and the lower threshold A,
the air-fuel ratio is controlled to a constant value.

9. Kamoto further states (Id. at 4: ¶ 0041):
For the control to keep the air-fuel ratio constant in the case of
the oxygen storage amount O2SUM being between the upper
threshold B and the lower threshold A, feedback control to the
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is executed in the present embodiment.
This is common control to lead the air-fuel ratio to the stoichiometric
air-fuel ratio, based on the exhaust air-fuel ratios detected by the A/F
sensors 25, 26.

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

6
10. Kamoto’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:

The figure above depicts the oxygen stored in Kamoto’s
catalyst.

D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
all elements of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
E. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 30 as anticipated by Bush and
claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-28 as anticipated by Kamoto or, in the alternative,
as obvious over Kamoto.
The rejections based on Bush
Robert Bosch argues claims 29 and 30 separately. We turn first to
claim 29 and focus on the disputed limitations.
Claim 29
Claim 29 requires the steps of (Claims App’x 5):
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

7
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop so that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges has a predetermined value;

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, at least until the oxygen excess
and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive probe[.]

Robert Bosch argues that Bush does not disclose those limitations. In
support of that argument, Robert Bosch first states (App. Br. 9:19-10:1;
Reply Br. 3:14-25):
As regards the procedure according to the "Bush" reference
(which largely corresponds to the procedure according to the
"Kamoto" reference discussed in further detail below), the Examiner
has himself granted (and pointed out the appropriate text locations in
the cited document) that in that document the air/fuel ratio is regulated
so that a predefined setpoint value of the oxygen content of the
catalytic converter is maintained (lines 46-48, column 10; and lines
65, column 10 to line 1, column 11).

Thus, the "Bush" reference does not provide for any direct
intervention in the regulation of the system for establishing the air/fuel
ratio of the internal combustion engine by the lambda sensor
(reference numeral 30) that is situated downstream from the catalytic
converter, since the signal of this sensor is drawn upon to estimate the
oxygen content in functional block 250. The corresponding text may
be found in columns 11 and 12 of the "Bush" reference.

Robert Bosch’s argument is misplaced. The claims do not call for any
“direct intervention” in the regulation of the air/fuel ration by a sensor. The
relevant portions of the claim require simply that the combustion process is
operated under a condition of either an oxygen excess or oxygen deficiency
until that condition is detected at an oxygen-sensitive probe. In rejecting
claim 29, the Examiner pointed to the following disclosure in Bush (Bush
Abstract):
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

8
The estimated oxygen stored by the catalyst is compared to a
predetermined threshold and positive or negative deviations in the
oxygen amount from the threshold is determined. When a positive
deviation from the threshold amount is detected, the air/fuel ratio
flowing into an engine (16) is decreased. Correspondingly, when a
negative deviation is detected, the air/fuel ratio flowing into the
engine (16) is increased. The amount of oxygen stored by the catalyst
is determined by analyzing signals from a first gas sensor (28)
positioned downstream from a catalytic converter and a second gas
sensor (30) positioned downstream from the catalytic converter (34).

Thus, Bush discloses that the air/fuel ratio flowing to an engine is
increased or decreased based on the amount of oxygen stored within an
exhaust catalyst of the engine. The amount of oxygen in the catalyst is
determined by analyzing the signals of sensor 28 arranged upstream of the
catalyst and sensor 30 arranged downstream of the catalyst. In light of that
disclosure, the Examiner determined that Bush discloses the step of
“operating the combustion process on average using one of oxygen excess
and oxygen deficiency, at least until the oxygen excess and the oxygen
deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive probe.” That determination is
reasonable and has not been addressed by Robert Bosch.
Robert Bosch also contends that Bush does not disclose that a “sum of
the oxygen charges and oxygen discharges has a predetermined value.” In
particular, Robert Bosch states (Reply Br. 4:1-9):
As to the Answer, it only refers to the text at column 10, lines 59
to 66 (see also col. 11, line 1) as indicating that the air ratio is
adjusted to restore the oxygen stored by the catalyst to 50% capacity.
In stark contrast, claim 29 specifically provides for “setting the
fuel/air ratio in a control loop such that a sum of the oxygen charges
and the oxygen discharges determined in an interval has a
predetermined value”, which concerns setting the sum of determined
oxygen charges and discharges (which are determined in an interval)
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

9
to a predetermined value. The difference could not be more plain.
Accordingly, the Busgh [sic] reference does not identically describe
(or even suggest) the features of claim 29, including the foregoing
“sum” feature. (Emphasis in original).

That argument is not persuasive. Claim 29 does not require or
reference an “interval.” Thus, Robert Bosch’s contention that Bush lacks
some feature directed to an “interval” requirement of that claim is
misdirected. Bush discloses that the amount of oxygen flowing into and out
of a catalyst is monitored and actively regulated such that when the oxygen
stored in the catalyst deviates from a predetermined setpoint, such as 50%
capacity of the catalyst, the amount of oxygen is restored to that setpoint.
(Bush 10:59-11:7.) Robert Bosch’s specification describes that “oxygen
charge and oxygen discharge are balances” where the balance of those
charges and discharges have a predetermined value “such as a zero value.”
(Spec. 8:14-19.) In light of the specification, the “sum” feature of claim 29
reads on balancing the oxygen inputs and outputs of the catalyst to a
predetermined “zero” value such that the amount of oxygen that enters the
catalyst equals the amount of oxygen that exits the catalyst.
The Examiner determined that the disclosure in Bush of regulating the
oxygen content of its catalyst to maintain a predetermined value, such as
50% capacity, satisfies the “sum” requirement of claim 29. That
determination is reasonable. Although Robert Bosch contends that the
differences between its “sum” feature and the disclosure of Bush “could not
be more plain,” it does not meaningfully explain what those differences are
or why the Examiner’s determination is incorrect. We reject Robert Bosch’s
argument that Bush does not disclose all the requirements of claim 29.
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

10
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 29 as
anticipated by Bush.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is an independent apparatus claim which, according to
Robert Bosch, “includes features like those of claim 29 and is therefore
allowable for essentially the same reasons.” (App. Br. 10:8-9; Reply Br.
4:12-13.) For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 29, we
reject Robert Bosch’s argument.
Robert Bosch also argues that Bush does not satisfy an “interval”
requirement of claim 30. Claim 30 does recite the term “interval.” In
particular, claim 30 requires (App. Br. 6 Claims App’x):
a setting arrangement to set the fuel/air ratio in a control loop such
that a sum of the oxygen charges and oxygen discharges determined
in a predefined interval has a predetermined value[.]

In accounting for the “interval” requirement of claim 30, the
Examiner explained (Ans. 10:10-14):
The “predefined interval” claims in the pending application is an
interval during which a rich (or oxygen deficiency) state or a lean (or
oxygen excess) state exists at a location downstream of the catalytic
converter. These states are clearly monitored by the downstream
oxygen sensor (30) as indicated in the Abstract and shown in Figure 5
of Bush et al.

Thus, the Examiner determined that the time during which the oxygen
content of the downstream catalyst does not fall within the desired capacity
of oxygen in the catalyst corresponds to the interval requirement of claim 30.
The Examiner’s determination is reasonable. “Interval” means “a
space of time between events or states.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

11
Dictionary 613 (10th ed. 1996). The period during which the oxygen in
Bush’s catalyst is either less than or greater than the desired amount until
that desired amount is restored is a space of time. Robert Bosch’s argument
is limited to a general contention that no “interval” exists in Bush. Robert
Bosch failed to address the Examiner’s reasoning of an “interval” disclosed
in Bush, and has not explained why that determination is incorrect.
Robert Bosch further contends that in Bush “the catalytic converter is
not completely filled with oxygen (as with the presently claimed subject
matter) and subsequently emptied, so that no ‘interval’ (as provided for with
the claimed subject matter) is created.” (Reply Br. 4:30-5:2.) That
contention, however, is misplaced. Claim 30 does not require that the
catalyst be completely filled or be completely emptied. The claim simply
requires that oxygen charges and discharges into a catalyst are summed to a
predetermined value in an interval. As discussed above, that is what is
disclosed in Bush. We reject Robert Bosch’s argument that Bush does not
disclose all the requirements of claim 30.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 30 as
anticipated by Bush.
The rejections based on Kamoto
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-28 as anticipated by
Kamoto or, in the alternative, as obvious over Kamoto. Claims 1 and 15 are
independent. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, 16-20, and 22-28 are ultimately
dependent on, and argued collectively with, one of claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1 and 15 each require the following limitations (Claims
App’x 1, 3):
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

12
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop such that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges determined in an interval
has a predetermined value; and

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, respectively, at least until the
oxygen excess and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive
Nernst probe downstream from the catalyst volume.

Kamoto discloses an engine air-fuel ratio control apparatus that is
similar to the system that is disclosed in Bush. Kamoto’s apparatus
includes an exhaust catalyst 19 with upstream and downstream air-fuel ratio
monitoring sensors 25 and 26. (Kamoto 3: ¶ 0030.) In Kamoto, the catalyst
stores oxygen and includes a lower threshold A and an upper threshold B
that are set for the amount of oxygen stored, termed O2SUM. (Id. at 3: ¶
0037.) Kamoto also discloses that lower and upper target values,
respectively A+α and B–ß, are established that lie within the range
established by the threshold values. (Id.) Kamoto states (Id. at 3-4: ¶ 0039):
When the oxygen storage amount O2SUM becomes larger than
the upper threshold B, the air-fuel ratio is controlled to the rich region
(i.e., the oxygen storage amount O2SUM is decreased) until the
oxygen storage amount becomes the upper target storage amount B–ß.
On the other hand, when the oxygen storage amount O2SUM
becomes smaller than the lower threshold A, the air-fuel ratio is
controlled to the lean region (i.e., the oxygen storage amount O2SUM
is increased) until the oxygen storage amount O2SUM becomes the
lower target storage amount A+α. When the oxygen storage amount
O2SUM is between the upper threshold B and the lower threshold A,
the air-fuel ratio is controlled to a constant value.

Thus, Kamoto discloses that the air-fuel ratio supplied to a
combustion engine is controlled to be either fuel rich or fuel lean based on
the amount of oxygen contained within the exhaust catalyst.
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

13
Kamoto further states (Id. at 4: ¶ 0041):
For the control to keep the air-fuel ratio constant in the case of
the oxygen storage amount O2SUM being between the upper
threshold B and the lower threshold A, feedback control to the
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is executed in the present embodiment.
This is common control to lead the air-fuel ratio to the stoichiometric
air-fuel ratio, based on the exhaust air-fuel ratios detected by the A/F
sensors 25, 26.

Thus, Kamoto further discloses that the amount of oxygen contained
in the catalyst is determined based on conditions detected by the sensors 25
and 26 that are, respectively, upstream and downstream of the catalyst.
In light of those teachings in Kamoto, the Examiner determined that
the above-quoted “setting” and “operating” steps of Robert Bosch’s claims 1
and 15 were satisfied.
Robert Bosch first argues that Kamoto does not teach the “operating”
steps of its claims. According to Robert Bosch, that step requires that “the
regulation intervenes so that the catalytic converter is cyclically completely
filled with oxygen or no longer contains any oxygen.” (App. Br. 11:22-24;
Reply Br. 5:24-26.) (Emphasis in original).
That argument is misplaced. Neither claim 1 nor 15 requires that a
catalyst is cyclically filled or emptied of oxygen. Rather, the “operating”
step of the claims simply requires that a combustion process operates with
either oxygen excess or deficiency until the excess or deficiency is sensed by
a oxygen-sensitive probe located downstream of the catalyst. That is what is
disclosed in Kamoto. In particular, in Kamoto, fuel-air supplied to a
combustion engine is controlled to be either fuel rich or fuel lean based on
the amount of oxygen contained within the exhaust catalyst as determined by
sensor 26 which lies downstream of the exhaust catalyst.
Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

14
Robert Bosch also argues (App. Br. 12:13-22; Reply Br. 6:13-23):
The "interval" contained in the "setting" feature of independent
claims 1 and 15 (as well as claims 29 and 30) is determined by the
response of the Nernst probe situated downstream from the catalytic
converter. The sum of the oxygen inputs and oxygen outputs
determined in this interval should assume a predetermined value
(which may be zero). This feature is not identically described (or even
suggested) by the "Kamoto" reference. In that reference, the system
attempts to keep the oxygen content to a value that is supposed to lie
between the upper target value B-beta and the lower target value A +
alpha (Figures 3 and 4). The air/fuel ratio cannot in any case be
established in the "Kamoto" reference so that the sum of the oxygen
inputs and the oxygen outputs determined in the interval assumes a
predetermined value, because this interval does not exist at all.

Thus, as it has in the context of the Bush reference, Robert Bosch
generally urges that Kamoto does not disclose that a sum of oxygen charges
and discharges are determined in an interval because no interval is allegedly
disclosed by that reference. The argument is not persuasive.
Kamoto’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:

The figure above depicts the oxygen stored in Kamoto’s
catalyst.

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

15
As shown in Figure 3, the amount of oxygen contained within
Kamoto’s catalyst is controlled over a length of time, the period from time
equals zero to the end of what is shown in the chart. That is, oxygen is
added when its level falls to a lower threshold and removed when its level
rises to an upper threshold. Robert Bosch does not explain why the time
period depicted in Figure 3 does not correspond to the “interval” of its
claims. We reject Robert Bosch’s arguments that Kamoto does not satisfy
claims 1 and 15.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-20,
and 22-28 as anticipated by Kamoto or, in the alternative, as obvious over
Kamoto.
F. CONCLUSION
1. Robert Bosch has not shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Bush discloses the features in claim 29 of:
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop so that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges has a predetermined value;

operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, at least until the oxygen excess
and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive probe.

2. Robert Bosch has not shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Bush discloses an “interval” as required by claim 30.
3. Robert Bosch has not shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Kamoto discloses all the features in claims 1 and 15 of:
setting the fuel/air ratio in a control loop such that a sum of the
oxygen charges and the oxygen discharges determined in an interval
has a predetermined value; and

Appeal 2009-005478
Application 10/364,255

16
operating the combustion process on average using one of
oxygen excess and oxygen deficiency, respectively, at least until the
oxygen excess and the oxygen deficiency occur at an oxygen-sensitive
Nernst probe downstream from the catalyst volume.

4. Robert Bosch has not shown that the Examiner was incorrect in
determining that Kamoto discloses an “interval” as required by claims 1 and
15.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bush is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Kamoto or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kamoto is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

ack

cc:

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK NY 10004