Ex Parte Kurtz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13438740 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
13/438,740 04/03/2012 Eric Kurtz 83224604 5716
36865 7590 11/30/2017
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205
EXAMINER
LAGUARDA, GONZALO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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 ERIC KURTZ, PAUL JOSEPH TENNISON,
WILLIAM CHARLES RUONA, WAHEED ALASHE,
DAVID A. MAY, and JOSHUA PUTMAN STYRON
____________

Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,7401
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “[m]ethods and
systems for increasing fuel economy of a vehicle including [an] SCR
catalyst.” Spec., Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the only independent

1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,740

2

claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the
appealed claims.2
1. A method for operating an engine, comprising:
adjusting an EGR amount supplied to an engine in
response to an amount of NH3 stored within an SCR catalyst and
an amount of urea stored in a tank.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–9, and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Katogi (US 2006/0086080 A1, pub. Apr. 27,
2006).
The Examiner rejects claims 2–4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Katogi.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection
Independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 5–8
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “adjusting an EGR
[exhaust gas recirculation] amount supplied to an engine in response to . . .
an amount of urea stored in a tank.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Katogi’s Abstract and paragraphs 5, 10–13, 61, and 65
teach this recitation (Final Action 2; Answer 2–3), while Appellants argue
that none of these portions of Katogi discloses adjusting an EGR amount in
response to an amount of urea stored in a tank (Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply
Br. 2–5). Based on our review, for the reasons we discuss below, the

2 We correct claim 1 to recite “NH3.” See, e.g., Appellants’ Response filed
Mar. 18, 2013, 2.
Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,740

3

Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Katogi discloses the
disputed claim recitation.
Specifically, although Katogi’s Abstract states that “an EGR amount
adjusting unit . . . adjust[s] an EGR amount,” and that “[a]n addition amount
of the additive and the EGR amount are set depending on an operating state
and deterioration of the catalyst with time,” this portion does not describe
adjusting an EGR amount in response to an amount of urea stored in a tank.
Katogi, Abstract; see also Appeal Br. 15. Katogi’s paragraph 5 discusses
problems of known systems, including the risk of pollution resulting from
injecting a large amount of ammonia or urea water. Katogi ¶ 5; see also
Appeal Br. 16. Katogi also describes the following: “increasing the EGR
amount when the regeneration of the catalyst is determined as being
insufficient” (Katogi ¶ 10); “modifying the addition amount of the additive
depending on the amount of the detected particular component” in an
exhaust gas (id. ¶ 11); “setting upper and lower limit values of the
modification amount for the addition amount of the additive, and modifying
engine control parameters . . . to suppress emission of the particular
component upon detection of arrival of the modification amount to the upper
and lower limit values” (id. ¶ 12); and “setting upper and lower limit values
of the modification amount for the addition amount of the additive, and
modifying the EGR rate or fuel injection timing . . . to suppress emission of
the particular component upon detection of arrival of the modification
amount to the upper and lower limit values” (Id. ¶ 13). However, none of
these portions of Katogi discuss adjusting an EGR amount in response to an
amount of urea stored in a tank. Reply Br. 2–5.
Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,740

4

Katogi’s paragraph 61 describes computing an amount of urea
remaining, and that “the spraying of the urea water is stopped” if the amount
of remaining urea is below a certain threshold. Katogi ¶ 61; see Reply
Br. 2–4. Similarly, Katogi’s paragraph 65 describes stopping the spraying of
urea water under certain circumstances. Katogi ¶ 65; see Appeal Br. 16.
But, neither portion describes adjusting an EGR amount in response to an
amount of urea stored in a tank. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner
does not support adequately the finding that Katogi discloses the disputed
claim recitation, and, therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 1 or its dependent claims 5–8.
Independent claim 9, and its dependent claims 11–15
Independent claim 9 recites, in relevant part, “adjusting an EGR
amount supplied to an engine in response an amount of urea stored in a tank
while a urea injection system is allowed to inject NH3.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. For reasons similar to those discussed above regarding claim 1, the
Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Katogi teaches
adjusting an EGR amount supplied to an engine in response an amount of
urea stored in a tank. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 9 or its dependent claims 11–15.
Independent claim 16, and its dependent claims 17–20
Independent claim 16 recites, in relevant part, “adjusting an amount of
urea injected in response to an amount of urea stored in a tank being greater
or less than an amount to reach a predetermined urea refill interval.” Appeal
Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds that Katogi’s paragraphs 65 and 74
teach this recitation (Final Action 5; see also Answer 5), while Appellants
argue that neither paragraph discloses the claimed adjusting (Appeal Br. 28–
Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,740

5

29; Reply Br. 9–10). Based on our review, for the reasons we discuss
below, the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Katogi
discloses the disputed claim recitation.
Katogi’s paragraph 65 states that
[w]hen the amount of the urea water in a urea water tank comes
into a predetermined range, the control unit 200 informs a driver
of the fact that the amount of the remaining urea water has
reduced to a low level. . . . When the amount of the urea water
remaining in the urea water tank is reduced below a lower limit,
the spraying of the urea water is stopped and an alarm is issued
for prompting the driver to reduce the engine output (309).
Katogi ¶ 65. Although this portion of Katogi teaches stopping the injection
of urea water when the amount of urea water falls below a lower limit, this
portion does not describe anything about adjusting an amount of urea
injected in response to an amount of urea stored in a tank being greater or
less than a predetermined amount.
Katogi’s paragraph 74 does state that “the amount of supplied urea is
set in reverse proportion to the concentration of the urea water.” Katogi
¶ 74. But, it is not apparent from either the paragraph itself, or our review of
Katogi in general, that this portion of Katogi discloses adjusting an amount
of urea that is injected anywhere, as compared, for example, to changing an
amount of urea that is supplied to the urea water, based on a concentration of
the urea in the urea water. It may be that this paragraph teaches (for
example) adding more urea water when the concentration of urea in the urea
water is too low, such that no change in an amount of injected urea ever
occurs. Thus, the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that
Katogi discloses the disputed claim recitation, and, therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 16 or its dependent claims 17–20.
Appeal 2016-005032
Application 13/438,740

6

Obviousness rejection
Each of claims 2–4 and 10 depends from independent claim 1 or 9,
whose anticipation rejection based on Katogi we do not sustain. The
Examiner does not demonstrate that an obvious variation of Katogi or any
other reference remedies the above-discussed deficiencies in the independent
claims’ rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2–4 and 10.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1–20.

REVERSED