Ex Parte Kweon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12400256 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
12/400,256 03/09/2009 Chol-Bum M. Kweon P001462-PTE-CD 3702
74175 7590 01/26/2017
Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (GM)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
gm-inbox@hdp.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHOL-BUM M. KWEON, FREDERIC ANTON MATEKUNAS,
IBRAHIM HASKARA, YUE-YUN WANG, OGNYAN N. YANAKIEV,
DONALD TERRY FRENCH, and PAUL ANTHONY BATTISTON
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Choi-Bum M. Kweon et al. (Appellants)1 seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office
Action, dated February 25, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1-26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify GM Global Technology Operations LLC as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to “engine fuel detection
and control.” Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 11 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
11. A method comprising:
selecting one of N cetane number (CN) values, wherein N
is an integer greater than one;
setting fuel injection timing based on the selected one of
the N CN values;
controlling a pilot fuel injection based on the selected one
of the N CN values;
generating a combustion noise signal indicative of a
combustion noise level within a cylinder of a compression
ignition (Cl) engine based on cylinder pressure in the Cl engine
after the pilot fuel injection and during combustion;
comparing the combustion noise signal to
N predetermined combustion noise levels corresponding to the
N CN values; and
determining whether an actual CN value of fuel
combusted by the Cl engine corresponds to the selected one of
the N CN values based on the comparison.
REJECTIONS
The Final Action included the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1^4, 6-14, 16-20, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2007/0151542 Al, published
July 5, 2007) and Masahiro (JP 09-158819 A, published June 17,
1997). Final Act. 2-5, 7.
2
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
2. Claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamaguchi, Masahiro, and Dils (US 5,052,214 issued October 1,
1991). Id. at 6, 7.
3. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamaguchi, Masahiro, and Honda
(US 2007/0175268 Al, published August 2, 2007). Id. at 6-7.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
With regard to independent claims 1 and 11, Appellants contend that
neither Yamaguchi nor Masahiro discloses controlling a pilot fuel injection
based on a selected CN value and determining whether an actual CN value
corresponds to the selected CN value. Appeal Br. 10-12. The Examiner
relied on Yamaguchi for disclosure of these claim limitations. Final Act. 2-
3, 7. As to Yamaguchi, the Examiner found “[i]n step S22 of Fig. 7 a
‘normal injection’ occurs” and “this ‘normal injection’ amount corresponds
to the normal injection amount for a default CN value.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner determined “[tjhis default CN value is the ‘selected cetane value’,
and the process illustrated in Fig. 7 and described in paragraphs [0065]-
[0067] determines whether or not an actual CN value corresponds to this
selected CN value.” Id.', see also Final Act. 8-9 (Examiner finding “[t]he
process disclosed by Yamaguchi begins with an estimated cetane number,
and detects the combustion state while adjusting the pilot fuel injection
amount in order to determine an actual cetane number”) (citing Yamaguchi,
Figs. 10A, 10B, paras. 71, 72). Appellants reply that “Yamaguchi does not
3
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
teach or suggest that. . . the normal injection amount corresponds to a
default CN value” and “the process of FIG. 7 does not affirm or invalidate
the cetane number of the fuel being used, as the cetane number of the fuel
being used is unknown at the start of the process.” Reply Br. 3.2 * 4
Yamaguchi discloses “[t]he CPU 14 estimates the cetane number CET
of the fuel in use with the process shown in FIG. 7 . . . .” Yamaguchi,
para. 65. In step S22 of this process, Yamaguchi explains “the normal
injection control is performed, i.e., the pilot injection and the main injection
are executed.” Id. at para. 66. In step S23 of this process, the pilot injection
fuel amount “is reduced by a predetermined amount” and in step S24, “it is
determined whether a pilot misfire has occurred in the engine 1.” Id. at
para. 67. Yamaguchi discloses that steps S23 and S24 are repeated until a
pilot misfires occurs. Id. at para. 69. Then, in step S25, a CET table shown
2 Appellants submit that the Examiner’s position, as set forth in the Answer
as to the scope and content of Yamaguchi, amounts to a new ground of
rejection. Reply Br. 4. After making this point, Appellants go on to present
arguments in rebuttal to the Examiner’s position. Reply Br. 4-5. The rules
governing appeals to the Board state that “[a]ny request to seek review of the
primary examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of
rejection in an examiner’s answer must be by way of a petition to the
Director under § 1.181 of this titled filed . . . before the filing of any reply
brief.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). The matter of whether the Examiner’s position
in the Answer constitutes a new ground of rejection is not properly before
us. We deem Appellants, by their presentation of arguments in the Reply
Brief in rebuttal to the Answer, to have waived any argument that the
rejection must be designated a new ground. Id.
4
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
in FIG. 9 is used to “calculate an estimated cetane number CET” based on “a
total reduced amount of the pilot injection.” Id.
We do not find adequate disclosure in Yamaguchi to support the
Examiner’s finding that the process in Yamaguchi controls a pilot fuel
injection based on the selected one of the N CN values as recited in claims 1
and 11. Rather, as noted by Appellants (Reply Br. 2), Yamaguchi’s process
begins with a normal pilot injection fuel amount in an idling condition.
Yamaguchi, para. 66. There is insufficient evidence that this normal pilot
injection fuel amount is controlled based on a selected CN value. Rather,
the pilot injection fuel amount of Yamaguchi is the same every time.
Appeal Br. 11 (Appellants arguing that “the table of FIG. 9 assumes that the
pilot injection fuel amount is initially reduced from the same amount (i.e.,
the normal injection amount) every time”). While the pilot injection fuel
amount may correlate with a CN value, Yamaguchi does not explicitly
disclose controlling the pilot fuel injection based on a selected CN value,
and we do not infer such a step from the disclosure provided in Yamaguchi.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, and their dependent claims 2—4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Masahiro.
Remaining Grounds of Rejection
The second and third grounds of rejection rely on the same deficient
findings as to the scope and content of Yamaguchi as was relied on in the
first ground of rejection. Final Act. 6-7. Thus, for the reasons set forth
supra, we likewise do not sustain the remaining grounds of rejection under
5
Appeal 2015-003911
Application 12/400,256
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5 and 15 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi,
Masahiro, and Dils, and of claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over
Yamaguchi, Masahiro, and Honda.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-26 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6