Stephen William. Magner et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

13410159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/410,159 03/01/2012 Stephen William Magner 83207379 5997
36865 7590 08/02/2019
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
usptomail@mccrus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN WILLIAM MAGNER and
MRDJAN J. JANKOVIC
____________________

Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants Stephen William Magner
and Mrdjan J. Jankovic1 appeal from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in
the Final Office Action dated April 6, 2016 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims
2–12, 15–17, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A
hearing was held on April 18, 2019.
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a post catalyst dynamic scheduling and
control. Claims 2, 15, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 2
is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis:
2. A method for controlling an engine exhaust with an
upstream sensor and a downstream sensor, comprising:
adjusting a set-point for the downstream sensor based
on a rate of change of air mass flow upstream of an engine;
comparing a measured exhaust reading from the
downstream sensor to the set-point to generate an error, and
determining a feedback correction from the error with a
feedback controller; and
adjusting fuel injection to control exhaust fuel-air
ratio (FAR) at the downstream sensor to the adjusted set-
point based on the feedback correction, and to control
exhaust FAR at the upstream sensor to an upstream sensor
set-point,

1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief, dated November 7, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), at 4.
2 Claims 1 and 14 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 41–46, Claims App. The
Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See Answer, dated December 15, 2016 (“Ans.”), at 18; see also
Advisory Action, dated August 17, 2016 (“Adv. Act.”), at 2.
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

3

wherein the upstream sensor is a wide-band oxygen
sensor and the downstream sensor is a narrow-band oxygen
sensor, wherein the adjusted set-point is further adjusted by
a frequency shaping filter that suppresses higher
frequencies and passes lower frequencies, and wherein the
comparison to generate the error is determined after
applying the frequency shaping filter to the adjusted set-
point.

Claim 15 is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis:
15. A method of controlling fuel injection in an engine
comprising:
determining a fuel-to-air ratio (FAR) of an exhaust
stream at a first oxygen sensor loop positioned upstream of
a catalytic converter and at a second oxygen sensor loop
positioned downstream of the catalytic converter;
determining a downstream set-point based on
operating conditions;
adjusting the downstream set-point based on a rate
of change of mass flow upstream of the engine;
converting the adjusted downstream set-point to
FAR; determining an error between the adjusted
downstream set-point FAR and a measured downstream
FAR;
determining an upstream set-point based on the
determined error; and
adjusting fuel injection based on the upstream set-
point and measured upstream FAR;
wherein an upstream sensor is a Universal Exhaust
Gas Oxygen (UEGO) sensor, and a downstream sensor is
a Heated Exhaust Gas Oxygen (HEGO) sensor, the
adjusting of the downstream set-point including mapping,
with a map, a calculated rate of change of a filtered air
mass flow into a delta HEGO set-point adjustment, the
mapping including where smaller air flow rates of change,
near zero, provide smaller HEGO set-point changes,
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

4

intermediate to large air flow rates of change create
larger dynamic HEGO setpoint changes, and even larger
air flow rates of change provide smaller HEGO set-point
changes.

Claim 19 is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis:
19. A method of diagnosing catalyst degradation in
an engine comprising:
determining a fuel-to-air ratio (FAR) of an
exhaust stream at a universal exhaust gas oxygen
(UEGO) sensor positioned upstream of a catalytic
converter and at a heated exhaust gas oxygen (HEGO)
sensor positioned downstream of the catalytic converter;
adjusting a set-point for a HEGO sensor loop
based on a rate of change of mass flow upstream of the
engine;
adjusting fuel injection to control the FAR to
match desired set-points; and
during selected conditions, adjusting a
downstream sensor set-point transiently and
independently of operating conditions over a range
within a maximum voltage and a minimum voltage,
identifying catalyst degradation based on a response to
adjusting the set-point.

Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

5

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:

Abthoff
Shimizu
Mayer
Bush
Yasui
Sealy
Nakahara
US 4,733,358
US 5,359,853
US 5,432,701
US 5,842,340
US 6,904,355 B2
US 6,945,033 B2
US 6,990,953 B2
Mar. 22, 1988
Nov. 1, 1994
July 11, 1995
Dec. 1, 1998
June 7, 2005
Sept. 20, 2005
Jan. 31, 2006
Schnaibel
Shirakawa
Piwonka
Jones
Kato
Rajagopalan
US 2003/0150209 A1
US 2005/0022512 A1
US 2005/0096835 A1
US 2007/0234708 A1
US 2008/0066727 A1
US 2009/0266052 A1
Aug. 14, 2003
Feb. 3, 2005
May 5, 2005
Oct. 11, 2007
Mar. 20, 2008
Oct. 29, 2009

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, and Jones.
2. Claims 3, 5, 6, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa,
Nakahara, and Jones.
3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara,
Schnaibel, and Jones.
4. Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara,
Sealy, and Jones.
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

6

5. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara, Sealy,
Mayer, and Jones.
6. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara,
Sealy, Mayer, Shimizu, and Jones.
7. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara, Sealy,
Mayer, Piwonka, and Jones.
8. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara, Sealy,
Mayer, and Jones.
9. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimizu and Bush.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claim 2
as Unpatentable Over Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, and Jones
Claim 2 recites, in part, a method for controlling an engine exhaust
with an upstream and a downstream sensor wherein an “adjusted set-point is
further adjusted by a frequency shaping filter that suppresses higher
frequencies and passes lower frequencies, and wherein the comparison to
generate the error is determined after applying the frequency shaping filter to
the adjusted set-point.” The Examiner finds that this limitation is disclosed
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

7

by Yasui. Final Act. 13, ¶¶ 38–39. The Examiner states that Yasui teaches
that
when a response of the first exhaust gas sensor is enhanced,
chemical noise may appear in the output of the first exhaust gas
sensor. The first decimation filter can remove such chemical
noise. The air-fuel ratio control based on the output from the
first decimation filter prevents the purification rate of the
catalyst from deteriorating.
Id. ¶ 39 (citing Yasui, 2:42–48). According to the Examiner, Yasui discloses
“a vehicle controller for controlling an air-fuel ratio (Title) comprising
frequency shaping filter (first decimation filter 36) that suppresses higher
frequencies and passes lower frequencies, wherein the comparison to
generate the error is determined after applying the frequency shaping filter to
the adjusted set-point.” Id. ¶ 38 (citing Yasui, 7:43–52).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s findings regarding Yasui are
erroneous because Yasui does not teach or suggest that the “comparison to
generate the error is determined after applying the frequency shaping filter to
the adjusted set-point” as recited in claim 2. See, e.g., Reply Brief, dated
February 15, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), at 2–5. We agree. Claim 2 addresses in
part, a method of adjusting a set-point for a downstream exhaust sensor. As
explained in the Specification, the method includes generating a reference
set-point (e.g., at determiner 204), and passing this set-point through a
frequency-shaping filter (e.g., lag-lead filter 206). See Spec. 9–10 and
Fig. 2. After the set-point is filtered, it may be compared to the output of a
downstream exhaust gas sensor (e.g., HEGO 127) to generate an error
signal, which is then used to determine a feedback correction for controlling
the air-fuel ratio. Id.
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

8

We agree with Appellants that Yasui teaches a different method of
controlling air-fuel ratio in a vehicle. Reply Br. 3. Figure 4 of Yasui is
reproduced below:

Figure 4 is a block diagram of air-fuel ratio control according a first
embodiment of the Yasui. Yasui, 4:36–40. Referring to Figure 4 and
column 7, lines 36–63 of Yasui, Yasui generates output Vo2/OUT from a
downstream exhaust sensor (02 sensor 17), and then filters that output with
first decimation filter 36 to generate filtered exhaust sensor output Vo2_df.
Filtered exhaust sensor output Vo2_df is then compared to reference set-
point Vo2/TARGET to generate error Vo2. Yasui, 7:36–63. Error Vo2 is
then used to correct air-fuel ratio set-point (KCMD). Id. We agree with
Appellants that “Yasui teaches applying a frequency shaping filter to the
downstream exhaust sensor output, whereas claim 2 calls for adjusting the
set-point, not the output, of the downstream sensor by the frequency shaping
filter.” Reply Br. 3–4.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

9

Rejections 2–7: Dependent Claims 3–12
Claims 3–12 depend from independent claim 2. As mentioned above,
to reject claims 3–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies on different
combinations of Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara,
Schnaibel, Sealy, Mayer, Shimizu, Piwonka, and Jones. See Final Act. 13–
21. The Examiner’s findings and reasoning regarding Shirakawa, Nakahara,
Schnaibel, Sealy, Mayer, Shimizu, Piwonka, and Jones, however, do not
remedy the deficiencies in Yasui as discussed above in connection with
claim 2. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3–12.

Rejection 2: Claim 15 as Unpatentable Over
Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa, Nakahara, and Jones
Independent claim 15 recites, in part, a method for controlling fuel
injection in an engine wherein “the adjusting of the downstream set-point
including mapping, with a map, a calculated rate of change of a filtered air
mass flow into a delta [Heated Exhaust Gas Oxygen] HEGO set-point
adjustment, the mapping including where smaller air flow rates of change,
near zero, provide smaller HEGO set-point changes, intermediate to large air
flow rates of change create larger dynamic HEGO set-point changes, and
even larger air flow rates of change provide smaller HEGO set-point
changes.” Appeal Br. 44–45, Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner
relies on Shirakawa and Nakahara to teach or suggest this limitation. Final
Act. 14–15, ¶¶ 44–49.
As to Shirakawa, the Examiner finds that Shirakawa discloses a map
relating a rotational speed of an engine to a target air fuel ratio. Id. ¶ 44
(citing Shirakawa, Figure 10). The Examiner finds that Figure 10 of
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

10

Shirakawa discloses a relationship between an exhaust air-fuel ratio set-point
on the ordinate and engine rotational speed NE on the abscissa. Ans. 19.
Figure 10 of Shirakawa, as annotated by the Examiner, is reproduced below:

Ans. 21. Figure 10 illustrates one embodiment of “a characteristic curve of a
rapid acceleration target air fuel ratio. Shirakawa ¶ 20. According to the
Examiner, the annotated Figure 10 “show[s] first, second and third slopes
corresponding to first, second and third changes in engine rotational speed
for given changes in air-fuel ratio setpoint.” Ans. 20. The Examiner finds
that Figure 10 shows a map which maps engine rotational speed to an air-
fuel ratio set-point, including smaller speed changes near the origin
providing smaller set-point adjustments, intermediate to large derivatives
providing larger set point adjustments, and even larger derivatives providing
smaller set point changes. Final Act. 14, ¶ 44. Because Shirakawa does not
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

11

relate a HEGO set-point adjustment to a rate of change of filtered air mass
flow the Examiner relies on Nakahara. Id. 14, ¶ 46.
As to Nakahara, the Examiner finds that “Nakahara discloses an
acceleration control for an internal combustion engine wherein the rate of
change of a filtered intake air flow (see electronic throttle 14) increases as
the rotational speed of the engine increases, above a threshold rotational
speed.” Final Act. 14, ¶ 47 (citing Nakahara, 4:35–43). According to the
Examiner, this is graphically represented by Figure 2 of Nakahara, which is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

12

Figure 2 illustrates a flowchart describing an intake air flow rate correction
routine performed by Nakahara’s controller. Nakahara, 2:32–33. Referring
to step S204, the Examiner explains that quantity ΔQN is an intake air flow
rate increase amount, quantity ΔNE represents the difference in engine
speed, and ΔQN measured over a time interval such as the routine execution
interval represents a rate of change in the air flow rate upstream of the
engine. Ans. 19 (citing Nakahara, 4:35–43, 3:53–62, 8:18–22).
According to the Examiner,
Both Nakahara (see Col. 1, lines 22-32) and Shirakawa [see
paragraphs 0006-0008] are concerned with improving control
during an acceleration condition. Thus, combining the maps to
generate a mapping, as claimed, that relates the target air-fuel
ratio setpoint to the rate of change in air flow rate simply
involves creating a function of three variables (air-fuel ratio
setpoint, engine speed, rate of change of intake air flow rate)
from two equations with a common variable (engine speed).
The mapping resulting from the combination would suggest to a
person of ordinary skill that it would describe at least the
relationship between the target air-fuel ratio setpoint and the
rate of change in air flow rate during an acceleration condition.
Id. at 19–20.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art “to perform the proportional engine speed to
rate of change of mass airflow control disclosed by Nakahara with the
exhaust system disclosed by at least Kato and Abthoff, to allow stable
engine speed response characteristics such as quick convergence and
minimization of overshoot,” and “to adjust the setpoint of the downstream
HEGO sensor disclosed by Kato and Bush, using the adjustment according
to engine speed (an[d] therefore rate of change of mass airflow) disclosed by
Shirakawa, to also improve acceleration and torque performance when the
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

13

engine is under full load at a low rotational speed, such as during idling.”
Final Act. 15, ¶ 49.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
regarding Nakahara and Shirakawa are erroneous because they do not teach
or suggest that the “comparison to generate the error is determined after
applying the frequency shaping filter to the adjusted set-point” as recited in
claim 2. See, e.g., Ans. 19–25. We agree.
First, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence and reasoning to combine the maps from Nakahara and
Shirakawa. Reply Br. 21. The Examiner admits that the quantities
described in Nakagawa and Shirakawa are different, and neither reference
discloses the claimed variable –– rate of change of a filtered air mass flow
amount. Ans. 19–20. Moreover, neither reference discloses using the rate
of change of a filtered air mass flow to make “a delta HEGO set-point
adjustment, the mapping including where smaller air flow rates of change,
near zero, provide smaller HEGO set-point changes, intermediate to large air
flow rates of change create larger dynamic HEGO set-point changes, and
even larger air flow rates of change provide smaller HEGO set-point
changes” as recited in claim 15. The evidence in Nakahara and Shirakawa
cited by the Examiner does not support the Examiner’s finding that
“mapping [a] target air-fuel ratio setpoint to the rate of change in air flow
rate simply involves creating a function of three variables (air-fuel ratio
setpoint, engine speed, rate of change of intake air flow rate) from two
equations with a common variable (engine speed),” or that the “mapping
resulting from the combination would suggest to a person of ordinary skill
that it would describe at least the relationship between the target air-fuel
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

14

ratio setpoint and the rate of change in air flow rate during an acceleration
condition.” Ans. 19–20.
Second, we agree with Appellants that, even if such a relationship
were possible, the resulting map would relate a target air-fuel ratio to an
engine to an air flow amount increase. Appeal Br. 23 (citing Nakahara,
4:30–35). Therefore, the Examiner’s purported map is not the same as that
required by claim 15, which relates a rate of change of an airflow amount to
a HEGO set-point adjustment. Thus, even ignoring the problems with
combining these two maps, such a combination still does not achieve the
appropriate relationship between quantities to reproduce the features of
claim 15.
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 15.

Rejections 4, 8: Dependent Claims 16 and 17
Claims 16 and 17 depend from independent claim 15. As mentioned
above, to reject claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies
on different combinations of Kato, Abthoff, Bush, Yasui, Shirakawa,
Nakahara, Sealy, Mayer, and Jones. See Final Act. 13–21. The Examiner’s
findings and reasoning regarding Sealy, Mayer, and Jones, however, do not
remedy the deficiencies in Shirakawa and Nakahara as discussed above in
connection with claim 15. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims
16 and 17.

Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

15

Rejection 9: Claims 19 and 20
as Unpatentable Over Shimizu and Bush
Independent claim 19 recites, in part, a method of diagnosing catalyst
degradation in an engine wherein “adjusting a set-point for a HEGO sensor
loop [is] based on a rate of change of mass flow upstream of the engine” and
“adjusting a downstream sensor set-point transiently and independently of
operating conditions over a range within a maximum voltage and a
minimum voltage.” The Examiner finds that this limitation is taught by
Shimizu at column 14, lines 35–42, “wherein Shimizu teaches that during
transient operating conditions the period in feedback control becomes
larger;” column 20, lines 25–38, “wherein Shimizu teaches that the degree of
transition of operating condition include conditions can be represented by
the rate of change of air mass flow;” and column 13, lines 25–61, “wherein
Shimizu discloses adjusting a set-point for the downstream sensor.” Final
Act. 5, ¶ 7.
The Examiner argues that
[Appellants] narrowly interpret[] output of a downstream
oxygen sensor as an operating condition. However, because
claim 19 does not specify what the selected conditions are, or
what the operating conditions are, or any limitation defining the
minimum or maximum voltage, the output of the downstream
oxygen sensor is only one possible operation condition or
selected condition and any adjustment of the setpoint meets the
claim.
Ans. 22–23 (emphasis added).
However, in light of the Examiner’s assessment that an output of the
downstream oxygen sensor is an “operating condition,” Shimuzu does not
adjust the downstream sensor set-point “independently of operating
Appeal 2017-005478
Application 13/410,159

16

conditions” as required by claim 19. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 19, and claim 20 which depends from claim 19.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–12, 15–
17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED.

REVERSED