Ex Parte Al-Dawood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12452997 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
209,046 9002
EXAMINER
TRAN, LONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/452,997 01/28/2010
38137 7590 03/21/2017
ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB
666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
Ali M. Al-Dawood
03/21/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALI M. AL-DAWOOD and FAHAD IBRAHIM AL-MUHAISH
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Ali M. Al-Dawood et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11, 13—19, and 21.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the Saudi Arabian Oil Company as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 12 and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 17—22 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus “for partial
decarbonization of hydrocarbon fuels on board combustion-based
transportation vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions.” Spec. 1, Title. Claims 1
and 18 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for the reduction of emissions of CO2 from a vehicle
powered by a hydrocarbon fuel-burning internal combustion
engine (ICE) by subjecting at least a portion of the fuel to on­
board decarbonization, the method comprising:
(a) providing an on-board decarbonization unit that
includes a decomposer, a cooler, a gas and solid separator and a
carbon storage unit;
(b) feeding a gaseous or vaporized liquid hydrocarbon fuel
to the decomposer on board said vehicle to thereby cause said
fuel to decompose and to produce hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich
gas, and elemental carbon;
(c) subjecting the hydrogen or the hydrogen rich-gas, and
the carbon to cooling in an on-board heat exchanger;
(d) separating the hydrogen or hydrogen-rich gas from the
carbon in the gas and solid separator;
(e) transferring the separated carbon from the gas and solid
separator to the on-board carbon storage unit;
(f) providing an electronic control unit programmed with
an optimized fuel distribution scheme to adjust the fuel flow rates
to distribute the fuel to the decarbonization unit and to the
internal combustion engine, wherein all or a portion of the fuel
is fed to the decomposer; and
(g) delivering the hydrogen or hydrogen-rich gas to the
vehicle's ICE for use as fuel.
2
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Detering US 2002/0151604 A1 Oct. 17,2002
Fletcher US 2004/0148860 A1 Aug. 5,2004
Tan US 2005/0022450 A1 Feb. 3,2005
N. Muradov, Thermocatalytic C02-Free Production of Hydrogen from
Hydrocarbon Fuels, Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen
Program Review, NREL/CP-6 10-32405 (hereinafter “Muradov”). Final
Act. 5.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1,3,4, 6—11, 13—18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Detering and Fletcher.
2. Claims 2 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Detering, Fletcher, and Muradov.
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Detering, Fletcher, and Tan.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1—11, 13—19, and 21 as a group. Appeal Br.
11—16. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—11, 13—
19, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
The Examiner finds that Detering discloses an internal combustion
engine (146) with a fuel distribution scheme (as shown in Fig. 11) in which a
hydrocarbon fuel is either directed to the engine or an onboard
decarbonization unit (20, 136, 127). Ans. 7 (citing Detering 1146, Fig. 11);
see also Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner explains that Detering’s “decision as
[to] which fuel is used, and how much of each fuel [should] be used in the
engine[,] infers a control command or decision tree but the reference itself
fail[s] to specifically mention an electronic control unit.” Id.
For the missing “electronic control unit” limitation, the Examiner uses
“Fletcher, which teaches a similar decarbonizaiton unit with carbon storage”
for “a programmable electronic control unit that controls the flow of fuel and
other liquids and gases.” Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner
also finds that Fletcher discloses “a computer 29, various sensors and
monitors, a data collector 31, and a programmable computer. These
structural elements are capable of controlling any kind of liquid or fuel since
information gathered by the sensors are inputted via the data collector and
used by the computer with stored programs to control the flow rate.” Ans. 8
(citing Fletcher || 25, 48, 49) (citations omitted).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellants contend that Detering “is directed to the
production of hydrogen and elemental carbon from natural gas and other
light hydrocarbons,” but does “not include the conventional liquid motor
vehicle fuels gasoline or diesel,” as disclosed in the Specification. Reply Br.
3 (citing Spec. 6:6—9 which discloses “gasoline, diesel, naphtha, ethanol,
natural gas, and blends of two or more of these fuels.”); see also Reply
Br. 5; Appeal Br. 14—15. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it
4
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which simply recites a
“hydrocarbon fuel,” and not any one in particular. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Second, Appellants argue that Detering does not disclose an
“electronic control unit” for an “optimized fuel distribution scheme,” and
that the Examiner improperly “infers” a “control command” and “decision
tree.” Reply Br. 3^4. The Examiner, however, finds that Fletcher, not
Detering, discloses an electronic control unit. Ans. 7. Appellants do not
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, do not show
Examiner error.
Third, Appellants argue that Fletcher is directed to a “plasma device,”
not an ICE. Reply Br. 5; Appeal Br. 11. However, the Examiner relies on
Detering, not Fletcher, for disclosure of an ICE. Ans. 7. Fletcher is relied
on for its disclosure of an electronic control unit. Id. Moreover, Appellants
recognize that Fletcher discloses that the hydrogen produced by Fletcher’s
device may be used as fuel for an ICE. Reply Br. 5. Accordingly,
Appellants’ argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, and, thus, does not identify Examiner error.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Detering’s
fuel distribution scheme controls the distribution of fuel between the engine
and decarbonization unit (Ans. 7 (citing Detering 1146, Fig. 11)) is
erroneous. Reply Br. 3—5; Appeal Br. 12—13. In Detering’s fuel distribution
scheme, “[ijntemal combustion engine 146 receives hydrogen stream 1483
3 In Figure 11, the hydrogen stream from economizer 136 is labelled
“158.”
5
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
and optionally ... a hydrocarbon stream 158.” Detering 1147. Detering
also discloses that
the light hydrocarbons may be supplied to the on-board system,
either as a direct fuel for internal combustion engine 146 or as a
fuel to be reformed into hydrogen as streams 156,160, and 162.
Any combination of the above feed streams may also be used
according to a specific application.
Id. 1148. Appellants argue that Detering’s general reference to “a special
application” is “vague and cannot properly be relied upon as a teaching that
would lead one of ordinary skill in the art in any particular direction.” Reply
Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 12—13. According to Appellants, Detering’s
“specific application” does not teach or suggest a fuel distribution scheme
that meets the “special demands of acceleration, hill climbing and other
forseeable increased power requirements placed on the ICE during normal
operation of the vehicle” and that contemplates “the constantly varying
power or torque demands placed on an automotive ICE.” Reply Br. 4.
Because these features do not appear in claim 1, Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Appellants’ argument that
Detering’s statement “according to a specific application” teaches away
from the recognition of these features (Appeal Br. 13) also is not persuasive
because Appellants do not identify how Detering criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages investigation into the features. See DePuy Spine, Inc.
v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(citations omitted). Detering’s teachings to control the distribution of the
fuel between the ICE and decarbonization unit discloses the recited “fuel
distribution scheme.” Appellants do not show error by the Examiner.
6
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
Fifth, Appellants argue that Fletcher does not disclose an “electronic
control unit programmed with an optimized fuel distribution scheme.”
Reply Br. 5—7. Appellants acknowledge that Fletcher discloses a
“computerized control” which has “commands to control the flow rate of the
input gas, the rotation of the internal electrode, the pulser operation
(frequency, voltage, pulse width), the temperature of gas preheat, and the
like.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Fletcher 125). Fletcher also discloses a
“computer 29 with proper software.” Reply Br. 7 (citing Fletcher 149).
Thus, Fletcher discloses a programmable computer control to distribute fuel
to a decomposer in the carbonization unit.
Appellants argue that Fletcher’s computerized control is “of a
different nature” than Detering’s control, and Fletcher does not “discuss or
mention the use of a programmed controller to optimize fuel distribution to
an ICE and decarbonization unit.” Reply Br. 7; Appeal Br. 11—13, 15.
Appellants also argue that the “Examiner's reliance on the combination of
the disclosures of Detering and Fletcher does not account for the technical
difficulty to be expected in physically combining Fletcher's stationary
apparatus with Detering's automotive application.” Appeal Br. 13—14.
However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teaching of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Allied Erecting and
Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is not necessary that [the references] be physically
combinable to render obvious the [invention under review].”). Here, the
7
Appeal 2015-005257
Application 12/452,997
Examiner’s rejection does not suggest using Fletcher’s fuel distribution
scheme to replace Detering’s fuel distribution scheme. Instead, the rejection
as articulated by the Examiner proposes to use Fletcher’s teachings of a
programmable computer to better control Detering’s fuel distribution
scheme “in terms of determining whether regular fuel is used by the engine,
a decarbonization [unit], or both.” Ans. 8. The Examiner reasons that the
“idea of providing a programmable computer is well-known in the art, and
the motivation to combine the computer of Fletcher into the engine of
Detering et al. is to improve the control of the flow rate of the inputted gas,
such as a hydrocarbon fuel into the system. The resulting improved control
of gas is then utilized in the system of Detering et al. to reduce emissions in
an internal combustion engine.” Ans. 8. Appellants do not show that the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning for using an electronic control unit (i.e.,
programmable computer) as taught by Fletcher to control Detering’s existing
fuel distribution scheme lacks rational underpinning. Appellants’ arguments
are not persuasive.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2—
11,13—19, and 21 fall with claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11, 13—
19, and 21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8