Ex Parte Host et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11422615 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAY HOST and ISABELLE GROOME ____________ Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ray Host and Isabelle Groome (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17. Appellants cancelled claim 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 2 The Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter “relates to an exhaust flow director and catalyst mount for internal combustion engine which serves not only as an exhaust manifold for collecting exhaust gases exiting the cylinder head of an engine, but also for a directly mounted exhaust after treatment catalyst.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 are independent and claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An exhaust flow director and catalyst mount for an internal combustion engine, comprising: a collector chamber having an outlet structure adapted for connection with an exhaust treatment catalyst; a plurality of exhaust flanges adapted for mounting to a plurality of exhaust ports exiting from a cylinder head of an engine; a plurality of exhaust runners, with one of said runners extending from each of said exhaust flanges to said collector chamber; and a plurality of transitional guide vanes, located within said collector chamber, for directing exhaust gases flowing from the runners and into the collector chamber. Independent claims 8, 12, and 14 are directed to “[a]n exhaust flow director, catalyst mount, and exhaust treatment catalyst for an internal combustion engine,” “[a] reciprocating internal combustion engine for an automotive vehicle,” and “[a]n exhaust flow director and catalyst mount for an internal combustion engine,” respectively, and each claim recites, inter Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 3 alia, “a plurality of transitional guide vanes, located within said collector chamber.” Br., Clms. App’x. Emphasis added. The Rejections The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review. (1). Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maus (US 6,487,854 B2, issued Dec. 3, 2002). (2). Claims 4-6, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Canini (US 6,324,839 B1, issued Dec. 4, 2001). (3). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Gottberg (US 5,996,339, issued Dec. 7, 1999). (4). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Dürr (US 6,604,358 B2, issued Aug, 12, 2003). OPINION Rejection (1) – Anticipation based on Maus The Examiner finds that Maus discloses each and every element to anticipate independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Maus discloses “a collector chamber (2, 10, 15, Fig. 2) having an outlet structure (6, Fig. 1) adapted for connection with an exhaust treatment catalyst (7, Fig. 1)” and “a plurality of transitional guide vanes (21, 22, Fig. 4; 25, 26, Figs. 5, 6; col. 6 lines 25-61), located within said collector chamber.” Ans. 3; see also Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Maus does not teach or suggest “a plurality of transitional guide vanes located within a collector chamber,” but “[r]ather, Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 4 Maus discloses a collector chamber, 2, having a catalyst attached to a tubular jacket, 3, with a clear separating plane, 6, extending therebetween, and with gas flow guides being located downstream of the collector.” Br. 7. Emphasis added. In other words, Appellants argue that “Maus’[s] collector 2 ends at separating plane 6,” because “Maus defines his structure 2 as a ‘collector’” and “[t]he Examiner is therefore in error because the proffered rejection relies upon Maus’[s] structure 8 and the space downstream therefrom as being defined, contrary to Maus’[s] own lexicon, as a ‘collector.’” Br. 7-8 (citing to Maus, col. 5, ll. 1-3). Appellants further argue the Examiner’s interpretation “that reference numerals 2, 10, and 15 from Figure 2 of Maus are used to define the collector chamber” is in error because Maus makes it clear “that this is not the case,” and “[t]he Examiner is not free to redefine ‘collector’ to buttress the proffered rejection, especially when the proposed redefinition is at loggerheads with both Maus and with Appellants’ own lexicography.” Br. 8. The Examiner responds that “in automotive parlance, a collector is the convergence area of a plurality of individual exhaust pipes,” “[i]t can be seen in Figure 2 of Maus that the individual exhaust pipes represented by the numerals 11-14 do in fact converge into an area represented by the numerals 2, 15, and 10” and this “would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being a collector in which the guide vanes depicted in Figures 4-6 are housed.” Ans. 8. However, we find this definition of collector, i.e., “the convergence area of a plurality of individual exhaust pipes,” does not support the Examiner’s finding that Maus’s reference numerals 2, 10, and 15 constitute the collector chamber. Indeed, Maus’s Figure 2 illustrates that the first through fourth exhaust gas flows 11-14 converge at the collector 2, not Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 5 at space 10 which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be downstream from where the exhaust gas flows 11-14 converge. Moreover, as argued by Appellants, Maus’s own disclosure indicates that reference numeral 2 represents a “collector” of the exhaust gas system 1. Br. 7 (citing to Maus, col. 5, ll. 1-3). In addition, other disclosure in Maus contradicts the Examiner’s finding that the structure represented by reference numeral 10 is part of the collector. For instance, Maus discloses that reference numeral 9 represents an “outlet cross-section . . . of the collector.” Maus, col. 5, ll. 30 and 60. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an outlet1 cross-section 9 of a collector 2 of an exhaust gas system 1 is located at a boundary or end of the collector 2 in order to let exhaust gas out of the collector. In another example, Maus discloses that reference numeral 10 represents a space and Maus refers to space 10 as being “between the collector 2 and the honeycomb body 7.” Maus, col. 5, ll. 22-25. The space 10 is located within a tubular jacket 3 and Maus indicates that the “tubular jacket 3 is disposed directly behind the collector 2.” Maus, Fig. 10 and col. 5, ll. 5-6. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure of Maus represented by reference number 2 to constitute the claimed collector chamber and consequently, the guide vanes 21, 22, 25, 26 of guide surface 8 located within the space 10 are not located within the collector chamber to satisfy the language of claim 1. 1 An “outlet” is defined as “a place or opening through which something is let out : EXIT.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE® DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1997). Appeal 2010-005414 Application 11/422,615 6 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 12, and claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maus. Rejections (2), (3), and (4) – Obviousness based on Maus and Canini, Maus and Gottberg, and Maus and Dürr, respectively Appellants rely on the same arguments set forth against independent claims 1, 8, and 12 as discussed supra and also argue that none of Canini, Gottberg, and Dürr cure Maus’s deficiency of not teaching transitional guide vanes located within the collector chamber. Br. 8-9. As we concluded supra that Maus fails to teach guide vanes located within the collector chamber, we agree with Appellants. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 4-6, 11, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Canini; claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Gottberg; and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maus and Dürr. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14, 16, and 17. REVERSED mls