Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2016

12874639 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2016)

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. 12/874,639 09/02/2010 Yinyan Huang 83161202 7640 36865 7590 03/16/2016 ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP 806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600 PORTLAND, OR 97205 EXAMINER LARGI, MATTHEW THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2016 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 YINYAN HUANG, ED BADILLO, and CHRISTINE KAY LAMBERT ________________ Appeal 2014-002425 Application 12/874,639 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–16. App. Br. 1. Claim 8 has been canceled. App. Br. 13 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relate[s] to a diesel engine exhaust treatment system, and more particularly, to an exhaust treatment system Appeal 2014-002425 Application 12/874,639 2 which utilizes a selective reduction catalyst (SCR) in combination with an SCR-coated diesel particulate filter.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 13 are independent; claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A diesel exhaust gas treatment system comprising: a diesel particulate filter positioned in an exhaust stream; said diesel particulate filter including an inlet, an outlet, and at least one porous wall; said diesel particulate filter including a first SCR catalyst positioned at said inlet of said diesel particulate filter through which exhaust gas flows and a second SCR catalyst coated on said diesel particulate filter; said second SCR catalyst comprising zeolite and a base metal selected from copper and iron; and a diesel oxidation catalyst positioned upstream from said diesel particulate filter. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Robel US 2008/0060348 A1 Mar. 13, 2008 Voss US 2009/0288402 A1 Nov. 26, 2009 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1–7 and 9–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Robel and Voss. ANALYSIS Each independent claim on appeal (i.e., claims 1 and 13) includes the limitation of “a first SCR catalyst positioned” at an inlet to a diesel particulate filter, and “a second SCR catalyst coated on said diesel particulate filter.” The Examiner relies on the teachings of Robel for this limitation (while relying on the teachings of Voss for other limitations). Appeal 2014-002425 Application 12/874,639 3 Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner provides a reason for the combination of Robel and Voss based on teachings found in Voss. Final Act. 3. Appellants present several arguments disputing the rejection of these claims. App. Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 1–4. We address Appellants’ contention that focuses on Robel’s disclosure of the above limitations. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants reference paragraph 26 of Robel which discusses the embodiment wherein Robel’s corresponding particulate filter “is coated with a SCR catalyst” as required by the claim language. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. Robel states that in this catalyst coated filter embodiment, “having filter 51 double as an SCR catalyst and a particulate trap, the need for a separate upstream catalyst 100 is eliminated.”1 Robel ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Due to the elimination of upstream filter 100, Appellants contend that “[t]his arrangement does not meet applicants' claimed system or method in which a first SCR catalyst is positioned at the inlet of the filter and a second SCR catalyst is coated on the filter.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner does not explain how or why one skilled in the art would ignore the teachings of this embodiment to eliminate the upstream catalyst, and instead (and contrary to these teachings), still employ an upstream catalyst. The Examiner provides no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for doing so. In support of the Examiner’s finding on this point, the Examiner references paragraph 14 of Robel. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4. Paragraph 14 states that “[t]he exhaust system comprises; a first SCR catalyst, a 1 The Examiner finds that Robel’s “first SCR catalyst (100) [is] positioned at said inlet of said diesel particulate filter (51),” as required by independent claims 1 and 13. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2014-002425 Application 12/874,639 4 particulate filter coated with a second SCR catalyst” along with first and second injectors.2 However, paragraph 14 does not provide the location (i.e., upstream/downstream) of this recited “first SCR catalyst” (i.e., the one not coated on the filter). See also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner may be relying on features disclosed in separate distinct embodiments of Robel. It is not disputed that “[p]ositioned opposite both ends of filter 51 are catalysts 100 and 110” with catalyst 100 being the “upstream catalyst” while catalyst 110 is the “downstream catalyst.” Robel ¶ 25; see also Robel ¶ 26 and Fig. 1. Robel’s elimination of “upstream catalyst 100” when the filter itself is coated leaves only downstream catalyst 110. Robel ¶ 26. Hence, we agree with Appellants’ contention (when discussing the Examiner’s reliance on Robel ¶ 14 supra), that the catalyst remaining is “downstream from the filter.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2–3. As such, the Examiner does not explain how this remaining, downstream “first SCR catalyst” (Robel ¶ 14) satisfies the limitation of a “catalyst positioned at said inlet of said diesel particulate filter.” Appellants also present arguments regarding claims 4 and 5 which depend from claim 1. App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4. Both of these dependent claims recite a limitation directed to a catalyst loading in terms of “g/in3.” The Examiner relies on paragraph 102 of Voss which discloses a “promoter” being present “in an amount of from about 0.1 to 30 percent by 2 The Examiner states that “the portion of Robel cited above by the Office (See Robel, Paragraph [0014]) is directed to the third embodiment of Robel which clearly includes a first SCR and a second SCR coated Diesel Particulate Filter.” Ans. 4. Appellants agree stating that “[t]he only embodiment of Robel that coats an SCR catalyst onto a particulate filter is the ‘third embodiment’ described at paragraphs [0014] and [0026].” Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2014-002425 Application 12/874,639 5 weight.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. Because the Examiner does not provide any correlation between Voss’ teachings of “percent by weight” and the units claimed (i.e., “g/in3”), we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–16. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–16 as being unpatentable over Robel and Voss is reversed. REVERSED