Ex Parte Boorse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

12943109 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/943,109 11/10/2010
109171 7590 11/21/2016
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30537-7037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
R. Samuel Boorse
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.
B248 2560US.l (0139.4) 3035
EXAMINER
AYALA DELGADO, ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2016 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):
IPDocketing@wcsr.com
basf-ip@basf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte R. SAMUEL BOORSE and MARTIN DIETERIE
Appeal2014-009726
Application 12/943,109
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
R. Samuel Boorse and Martin Dieterie (Appellants) 1 appeal under 3 5
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-15. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BASF Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009726
Application 12/943, 109
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to catalytic articles comprising
a wall flow filter loaded with SCR [(selective catalytic reduction)] catalyst."
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below from
page 14 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief with paragraph structure
added:
1. A catalytic article comprising
a wall flow filter having a plurality of longitudinally
extending passages formed by longitudinally extending porous
walls having substantially uniform porosity in cross-section
bounding and defining the passages
wherein the passages comprise
inlet passages having an open inlet end and a
closed outlet end, and
outlet passages having a closed inlet end and an
open outlet end,
each of the porous walls having in cross-section an inlet
portion and an outlet portion, the outlet portion being no greater
than about 60% of the cross-sectional thickness of the porous
walls, and
the wall flow filter loaded with an SCR catalyst
composition such that substantially all of the catalyst is
distributed in the outlet portion of the porous walls.
REJECTION
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hu (US 2006/0179825 Al, pub. Aug. 17, 2006) and
Henry (US 2010/0303677 Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2010). 2
2 We note that the Examiner mistakenly cited Brisley and Beall references in
the Final Action. Final Act. 2. We consider this to be a typographical error,
as the body of the rejection properly referenced the Hu and Henry
references, Appellants understood the rejection to be based on Hu and Henry
2
Appeal2014-009726
Application 12/943, 109
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hu discloses the invention substantially as
claimed in independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a wall flow filter
(device 10) having porous walls (filter elements 11) with an SCR catalyst
distributed in the outlet of the porous walls. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Hu i-fi-122,
24, 65, Fig. 8). The Examiner finds that Henry discloses a filter with porous
walls (120) wherein the outlet portion of the walls includes a catalytic
coating (130) and is no greater than 60% of the cross-sectional thickness of
the porous walls, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to similarly dimension the outlet portion of Ru's porous walls to
predictably achieve desired activity of the catalytic material and to provide a
change in particulate storage capacity with routine experimentation. Id. at
3--4 (citing Henry i-fi-126, 28).
Appellants traverse, arguing, inter alia, claim 1 recites that
substantially all of the SCR catalyst is in the porous walls of the catalytic
article, and the cited references disclose the SCR catalyst on the outer
surfaces of the porous walls. App. Br. 8-11 (citing Spec. i-fi-125, 35, Fig. 3;
Hu i122, Fig. 1; Henry i128, Fig. lb). We find Appellants' argument
persuasive.
The Examiner answers Appellants' argument in two manners. First,
the Examiner interprets "in" to include "the coating distributed along the
wall outlet portion." Ans. 8-9. However, the Examiner's interpretation is
inconsistent with how "in" is described in the Specification. See, e.g., Spec.
(see App. Br. 6), and the Examiner clarified the rejection in the Answer (see
Ans. 3).
3
Appeal2014-009726
Application 12/943, 109
i-f 25 ("In order to avoid very high back pressures, the SCR catalyst coating
should not simply be on the outlet channel wall surface where it would form
a fully dense layer. Rather the coating must be in the wall but only penetrate
the outlet half of the wall." (emphases added)); see also id. i-f 30 and Fig. 3
(describing and illustrating, respectively, the catalyst within the porous
wall); and Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 25). Appellants have limited
distribution of the SCR catalyst "in the ... porous walls" to exclude
distribution of a layer of catalyst material solely on an outer surface of the
porous walls. The Examiner's interpretation to the contrary is improper.
Alternatively, the Examiner answers that Henry teaches distribution of
the SCR catalyst in the porous walls. Ans. 9--10 (citing Henry i-f 3; MPEP
§ 2123). The section of Henry cited by the Examiner discusses the
background of the invention and states:
One approach to meet the need for combined [particulate
matter] and [nitrogen oxide] (NOx) control has been to
integrate a DeNOx catalyst within a diesel particulate filter
(DPF) to reduce volume and decrease backpressure penalty. In
this approach, the catalyst and DPF are integrated by loading
the catalyst within the DPF wall porosity. However, this type of
catalyst addition adversely affects soot-loaded backpressure,
even for very high porosity filters (>65% porosity), which, in
addition, are challenging to produce. Such backpressure
imposes a severe fuel consumption penalty and complicates
regeneration of the DPF.
Henry i-f 3 (emphasis added); see also id. i-f 24. Henry teaches an alternative
to integrating the SCR catalyst within the filter; namely, to provide the
catalyst as a layer "on an outer surface of porous walls 120, rather than in
the porosity within porous walls 120." Id. i-f 28 (emphasis added); see also
id. i-fi-135-36 (explaining the advantage of providing the SCR catalyst on an
4
Appeal2014-009726
Application 12/943, 109
outer surface of the porous walls rather than within the walls), i-f 40 (teaching
the filling of the wall pores prior to depositing the SCR catalyst to prevent
deposition of the catalyst within the porous walls); and Reply Br. 3--4 (citing
Henry i-fi-128, 40). Henry would therefore suggest to a skilled artisan to
deposit the SCR catalyst on the surface of the porous walls and to avoid
placement of the SCR catalyst in the porous walls. The Examiner's
suggestion to the contrary is in error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, as well as of its dependent claims 2-15, as being
obvious over Henry and Hu.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
5