Ex Parte Brusslar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 2013

12077378 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2013)

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. 12/077,378 03/19/2008 Matthew J. Brusslar EPA 726-06 6349 7590 05/10/2013 David Read US EPA, NVFEL 2565 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 EXAMINER BACON, ANTHONY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2013 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 MATTHEW J. BRUSSLAR, CHARLES L. GRAY, JR., and DAVID JAMES HAUGEN ____________ Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Matthew J. Brusslar et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26. Claims 27 and 28 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to internal combustion engines, particularly those designed for use with high octane alcohol or alcohol blend fuels, including ethanol and methanol.” Spec. 1, ll. 10-11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal. 1. An internal combustion engine system, comprising: an engine block with a plurality of combustion cylinders formed therein, each combustion cylinder being closed at one end by a cylinder head and having a cylinder bore diameter (B); an intake manifold for receiving charge-air from an intake line and distributing said charge-air to the combustion cylinders; fuel injectors for providing quantities of an alcohol fuel to mix with the charge-air for combustion; a controller, for controlling the quantities of alcohol fuel to provide for stoichiometric combustion of the fuel and charge- air mixture; a piston mounted within each combustion cylinder for reciprocating motion within the combustion cylinder, said piston cycling toward and away from the cylinder head, with a compression ratio of 15:1 or greater, from a bottom dead center position to a top dead center position within the combustion cylinder; a combustion bowl formed in a head of the piston, said combustion bowl defining walls, along with the cylinder head, of a compact combustion chamber for combustion of the mixture of fuel and charge-air within the combustion cylinder; a spark plug positioned within a recess in the cylinder head, with a tip extending toward the combustion chamber and in operative communication with the combustion chamber, for Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 3 triggering combustion of the alcohol fuel and charge-air mixture in the combustion cylinder, wherein the distance (L) between the tip of the spark plug and the farthest point of the compact combustion chamber from that spark plug, when the piston is at the top dead center position, is less than one-half the cylinder bore diameter (B); an exhaust manifold for receiving and routing exhaust gases from the combustion cylinders to an exhaust line for discharge of the exhaust gas; and a three-way catalyst aftertreatment device operatively connected to the exhaust line, for reduction of harmful emissions in the exhaust gas. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Gruden US 4,811,708 Mar. 14, 1989 Suzuki US 5,353,752 Oct. 11, 1994 Hiraya US 6,138,639 Oct. 31, 20001 Kruse US 2001/0050068 A1 Dec. 13, 2001 Buckland US 6,513,484 B1 Feb. 4, 2003 1 The Examiner includes Hiraya in the Evidence Relied Upon portion of the Answer. Ans. 3. The Examiner does not rely on Hiraya in the Grounds of Rejection. Rather, the Examiner cites to Hiraya in the Response to Arguments portion of the Answer to demonstrate that “one of ordinary skill in the art could easily produce a piston having a combustion bowl and direct injection, whereby a further recess to accommodate the fuel injection nozzle tip is not specifically needed or provided.” Id. at 11; see also id. at 14. Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 4 THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 6-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gruden and Kruse; 2. Claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gruden, Kruse, and Buckland; 3. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gruden, Kruse, and Suzuki; and 4. Claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gruden, Kruse, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)2. ANALYSIS The Examiner determined, with reference to Figure 2 of Gruden, that Gruden discloses an internal combustion engine having a combustion bowl formed in a head of the piston and a spark plug positioned within a recess in the cylinder head, wherein the distance between the tip of the spark plug and the farthest point of the compact combustion chamber from that spark plug, 2 The AAPA is the disclosure on page 17 of the Specification of “a flex fuel system for determining the content of ethanol in an ethanol/gasoline fuel and a variable compression ratio device for varying the compression ratio of the engine.” Ans. 10. Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 5 when the piston is at top dead center position, is less than one-half the cylinder bore diameter, as called for in independent claim 1. Ans. 4-5.3 Appellants argue that Gruden’s combustion chamber includes combustion bowl 16 and recesses 18 and 19. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that “the farthest point of the combustion chamber in Gruden from the tip of the spark plug is in recesses 18 or 19 and is not less than one-half the cylinder bore diameter, as required in applicant’s claim 1.” Id. at 14. The Examiner responds that “[t]hough the recesses (18, 19) are shown in figure 2 as intersecting the combustion bowl, they are not defined as being a part thereof.” Ans. 11. The Examiner found that Gruden’s combustion chamber is comprised of only the combustion bowl 16 because “the purpose of the recesses (18, 19) is to accommodate the nozzle tip of the injectors such that fuel can be injected directly into the cylinder.” Id. The Examiner further points to claim 1 of Gruden, which does not require the recesses 18, 19 to be part of the combustion space, as evidence that “Gruden must have at least contemplated a design without said recesses. . . .” Id. at 13. Gruden discloses an internal combustion engine 1 having a cylinder 2 and a cylinder head 4. Gruden, col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 4; fig. 2. Gruden discloses that “the combustion space 9 is provided between a piston 11 installed into a bore 10 of cylinder 2 and the cylinder head 4.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 7-9. The piston 11 is provided with a spherically-shaped recess 16, 3 The Examiner relied on Kruse to teach the use of a controller to control the injectors in a flexible fuel engine to inject an alcohol fuel at a high compression ratio. Ans. 5. Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 6 “within the area of the injection devices 14 and 15 with recesses 18 and 19.” Gruden, col. 2, ll. 26-27 and 44-46; fig. 2. As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 14-15), claim 4 of Gruden defines the combustion space as including recesses (i.e., recesses 18 and 19) within the area of the injection means. Gruden, col. 4, ll. 1-3. We agree with Appellants’ reading of Gruden as defining a combustion space that includes a lower boundary formed by the top surface of piston 11 and a top boundary formed by the roof-shaped combustion space boundary 12 of the cylinder head 4 such that the spherically shaped recess 16 and injection recesses 18 and 19 provided in the top surface of piston 11 form the lower boundary of the combustion space. Thus, we further agree with Appellants that the farthest point in the combustion chamber from the tip of the spark plug would be a point in one of the recesses 18 or 19. As such, the Examiner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Gruden discloses the claimed system where the distance between the tip of the spark plug and the farthest point of the combustion chamber from that spark plug, when the piston is at the top dead center position, is less than one-half the cylinder bore diameter, as called for in claim 1. Appellants also argued recesses 18 and 19 increase the distance the flame must travel in the combustion space and would prevent the engine in Gruden from being able to operate at the high compression ratios suggested in Kruse without unacceptable knocking. App. Br. 15. The Examiner responded that the recesses 18 and 19 are so small that they would not Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 7 significantly alter the engine knocking or ability to provide the high compression ratio. Ans. 11. In this instance, the Examiner’s proposed modification does not involve removal of recesses 18 and 19 from Gruden. As such, for the reasons provided above, the Examiner has not shown that the combined teachings of Gruden and Kruse would result in a system in which the distance between the tip of the spark plug and the farthest point of the combustion chamber is as called for in claim 1. The Examiner alternatively pointed to Hiraya as evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art, modifying the system of Gruden to operate a high compression ratio as suggested in Kruse, “could easily produce a piston having a combustion bowl and direct injection, whereby a further recess to accommodate the fuel injection nozzle tip is not specifically needed or provided.” Id. Appellants argue that “while it is true that not all engines need recesses like 18 and 19, Gruden does.” App. Br. 15. Appellants argue that the recesses in Gruden are necessary to accommodate the injector to avoid interference between the injector and the piston in Gruden at top dead center because “the Gruden engine is designed such that . . . ‘[o]utside of the recess 16, the piston 11 is extended close to the combustion space boundary.’” Id. at 15-16 (quoting Gruden, col. 2, ll. 40-42). Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided any motivation to make further changes to the system of Gruden so as to enable elimination of the recesses 18 and 19 without significantly altering the combustion dynamics of Gruden. Id. at 17. Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 8 To the extent that the Examiner’s alternative position proposes modification to Gruden to remove recesses 18 and 19 from the system of Gruden based on the teaching of Hiraya, we decline to consider such a proposed modification because the Examiner has not included Hiraya in the ground of rejection before us for review. To the extent the Examiner’s position is that the proposed modification of the system of Gruden to operate at a high compression ratio as suggested by Kruse would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the recesses 18 and 19 of Gruden, we examine this alternative position to determine if the Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to support this proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) We agree with Appellants that it does not appear from Gruden that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to simply eliminate the recesses 18 and 19 without resulting in interference between the injectors and the piston when the piston is at top dead center. As such, the Examiner’s proposed modification to eliminate recesses 18 and 19 would require some additional modification to the system of Gruden. We agree with Appellants that further modification to the system of Gruden, such as changes to the position of the injectors, would change the combustion progress in the Appeal 2011-004579 Application 12/077,378 9 combustion space. See Gruden, col. 1, ll. 19-22 (“It is the object of the present invention to favorably influence the combustion progress in the combustion space by geometric configuration measures as well as arrangement of the ignition and injection devices.”) As such, we find that the Examiner failed to provide an adequate explanation of how the modification of the system of Gruden to operate at a high compression ratio as taught by Kruse would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the recesses 18 and 19 from Gruden. As such, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Gruden and Kruse. The rejections of dependent claims 2-26 suffer from the same shortcoming as discussed supra in the analysis of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 2-26. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-26. REVERSED mls