Ex Parte Sellnau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13881621 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/881,621 04/25/2013
152048 7590 07/31/2018
Delphi Technologies IP Limited
5825 Innovation Drive
Delphi Technologies Legal Staff - MIC 480-415-154
Troy, MI 48098
Mark C. Sellnau
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.
DP-319539 9455
EXAMINER
STECKBAUER, KEVIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
j oshua. m.haines@delphi.com
us.patent@delphi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK C. SELLNAU, KEVIN S. HOYER, and
JAMES F. SINNAMON
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark C. Sellnau et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1-20, 22, 23, 24,2 27, and 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, Delphi Technologies, Inc., of Troy, Michigan, is
owner by assignment from the inventors Mark C. Sellnau, Kevin S. Hoyer
and James F. Sinnamon. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Although the cover sheet of the Final Office Action does not include claim
24, claim 24 is included in the first ground of rejection. See Final Act. 1, 10.
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, 24, 27, and 28 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, 3 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising a gasoline direct injection internal
combustion engine having at least one cylinder with direct fuel
injection and containing a piston reciprocally moveable within
the cylinder and connected to a crank;
a bore wall surface of the cylinder, a top surface of the
piston, and a bottom surface of a cylinder head of the engine
defining a variable volume combustion chamber;
said cylinder head including an intake valve controlling
communication with an air intake and an exhaust valve
controlling communication with an exhaust outlet;
a means for controlling an amount of residual burned gas
in the combustion chamber;
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) means with EGR control
means to reintroduce exhaust gas into the combustion chamber;
intake pressure boost means with intake pressure boost
control means;
fuel injection means providing multiple injections per
combustion cycle and distributing fuel spatially within the
combustion chamber without wetting of the combustion chamber
and to achieve a non-homogenous fuel charge within which
distinct equivalence ratios varying from higher in the center to
lower at the outside exist over essentially the entire speed and
load operating range of the engine; and
a control means controlling the amount of residual burned
gas in the combustion chamber, EGR, number of fuel injections
3 The copy of claim 1 in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief is
incorrect as it does not include all of the changes to this claim made in the
amendment filed May 24, 2016. Specifically, the copy in the Claims
Appendix includes two instances of the phrase "capable of," which were
deleted by this amendment.
2
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
per combustion cycle, fuel injection timing, and boost pressure
as a function of engine speed and load in a manner sufficient to
enable gasoline direct injection compression ignition (GDCI)
combustion of a mixture of air and a fuel having an
(RON+MON)/2 value between about 75 and about 100, without
an external spark stimulus over essentially the entire speed and
load operating range of the engine;
wherein no fuel is injected earlier than 30 crank angle
degrees before top dead center of a compression stroke and no
fuel is injected later than 10 crank angle degrees after top dead
center of the compression stroke.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shiraishi
Duverger
Sloane
Kobayashi
Hiller
Hitomi
US 6,880,518 B2
US 2007 /0266978 Al
US 2007 /0272203 Al
US 2008/0275621 Al
US 2009/0301434 Al
US 8,544,444 B2
REJECTIONS
Apr. 19, 2005
Nov. 22, 2007
Nov. 29, 2007
Nov. 6, 2008
Dec. 10, 2009
Oct. 1, 2013
I. Claims 1, 8-10, 15, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Duverger.
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Duverger and Hitomi.
III. Claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Duverger and
Kobayashi.
3
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
IV. Claims 4, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Duverger and Sloane.
V. Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Duverger and Hiller.
VI. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Duverger and Shiraishi.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I: Anticipation or, in the Alternative Obviousness of
Claims 1, 8-10, 15, 23, 24, 27, and 28 in view of Duverger
Appellants argue claims 1, 8-10, 15, 23, 24, 27, and 28 together. See
Appeal Br. 18-23. We select claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 8-
10, 15, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Duverger discloses each and every limitation
of claim 1. See Final Act. 10-13. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that
Du verger discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. See id. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Duverger discloses "a non-homogenous
fuel charge within which distinct equivalence ratios varying from higher in
the center to lower at the outside exist over essentially the entire speed and
load operating range of the engine." Id. at 11 (citing Duverger ,r,r 2, 12, 33).
The Examiner further finds that
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily
recognized that injection late in the compression stroke or just
after top dead center of the compression stroke, as disclosed by
Duverger (Paragraph 0012), provides stratification of the fuel
charge, and Duverger merely teaches reducing the stratification
4
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
Id.
by using high pressure injection (Paragraph 0036) rather than
entirely eliminating stratification for a 100% homogeneous
charge.
As an initial matter, we note that throughout their arguments
pertaining to Rejection I, Appellants refer to Kobayashi (a reference relied
upon in a prior rejection that is no longer relied upon to reject the claims at
issue). See Appeal Br. 18, 19, 21, 22. Appellants' remarks pertaining to
Kobayashi are inapposite and are not addressed for that reason. Moreover,
comparisons of Duverger to Kobayashi do not inform of us error.
With respect to Rejection I, Appellants contend that Duverger fails to
disclose:
1. "-A non-homogenous fuel charge, one within which distinct
equivalence ratios are maintained that vary from higher in the
center toward lower at the outside." Appeal Br. 20;
2. "-Injection of fuel within only the compression stroke of the
piston." Id. at 21;
3. "-Injection of fuel so as to avoid wetting of the walls of the
combustion chamber, especially of the top piston surface." Id.;
and
4. "-The non- use of any external spark to com bust the fuel over the
entire load and speed range of operation of the engine." Id. at 22.
We address each of these contentions in tum.
In support of contention 1, Appellants argue that in Duverger "the
only mention of a non-homogenous charge is in a description of the prior art.
And, in fact, it is quite clear, from paragraph [0015], that the objective is to
attain as homogenous a charge as possible, specifically, to enable 'a
5
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
sufficient homogenization of the charge to enable self-ignition."' Appeal
Br. 20.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that "Duverger
merely teaches reducing the stratification by using high pressure injection
(Paragraph 0035) rather than entirely eliminating stratification for a 100%
homogeneous charge." Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that "[t]he passage 'a
sufficient homogenization of the charge to enable self-ignition' (Paragraph
0035 of Du verger) indicates that the charge is not homogeneous." Id. In
addition, the Examiner notes that "the claim limitation does not recite any
specific values of equivalence ratios and their respective position within the
combustion chamber." Id.
The Examiner has the better position. The fact that Duverger teaches
reducing stratification (i.e. non-homogenization) does not negate the fact
that Duverger's charge is stratified. Duverger ,r 6. We agree with the
Examiner that Duverger's statement that "the invention makes it possible to
obtain a sufficient homogenization of the air-gasoline mixture to enable self-
ignition, even in the case of a relatively late injection" suggests that the air-
gasoline mixture is non-homogenous. Id. ,r 35. Moreover, the Examiner is
correct that claim 1 does not set forth particular equivalence ratio properties
which preclude Duverger from reading on claim 1. Accordingly,
Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
Regarding contention 2, Appellants argue that "[i]n paragraph [0037],
it is noted that in the preferred embodiment, ' ... at least partial injection is
delivered during the air intake phase into the combustion chamber 4 to form
an air-gasoline mixture .... " Appeal Br. 21. As correctly noted by the
Examiner, however, claim 1 "does not recite injection of fuel within onlv the
6
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
compression stroke of the piston." Ans. 4. Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are
not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Turning to contention 3, Appellants argue that"[ w ]hile that topic does
not appear to be explicitly addressed in the language in Durverger [sic], it is
clear ... that the fuel injection is being sent straight and forcefully to
penetrate toward the top surface of the piston which, again, aids mixing and
homogenization." Appeal Br. 21.
This argument, however, does not demonstrate that Duverger fails to
disclose injection of fuel so as to avoid wetting the walls of the combustion
chamber as required by claim 1. As the Examiner correctly finds, "Duverger
explicitly teaches that the combination of these features ensures quick
atomization of the fuel into fine droplets." Ans. 5 (citing Duverger ,r 28).
We agree with the Examiner that "[a] person having ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that these characteristics minimize/eliminate wall
wetting." Id. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Moreover, to the
extent that Appellants are again arguing that Duverger fails to disclose a
non-homogenous fuel charge, Appellants' argument is unconvincing for the
reasons discussed supra.
Finally, in support of contention 4, Appellants argue that "it is readily
apparent that Duverger does not imagine that compression ignition can
possibly work in the very high, or very low load ranges of operation."
Appeal Br. 22 ( citing Du verger ,r 16 ("The engine comprises ignition means
intended to produce ignition of the air-gasoline mixture in the combustion
7
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
chamber during the so-called very-low load or very-heavy-load ranges of
operation.")).
Responding to this argument, "the Examiner submits that the claim
recites 'without an external spark stimulus over essentiallv the entire speed
and load operating range'." Ans. 6. The Examiner further notes that not
only does Duverger teach "using external spark stimulus during very high or
very load loads, as noted by Appellant, but [Duverger also] teaches the non-
use of the external spark during a majority of the speed and load operating
range." Id.
Claim 1 does not preclude external spark stimulus over the entire
speed and load operating range of the engine. Appeal Br. 25 (Claim App.)
Moreover, as noted by the Examiner "Appellant's invention also includes an
external spark stimulus (See spark plug 76) for use during a certain
operating mode which includes a particular speed and load operating range."
Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 8-10, 15, 23, 24, 27, and 28, which fall therewith.
Rejections II-VI
Appellants do not contest Rejections II-VI. See generally Appeal Br.
Accordingly, we sustain these rejections.
8
Appeal2017-008311
Application 13/881,621
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are
AFFIRMED.
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
9