Ex Parte Lucka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 1, 2017

12675399 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 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. 12/675,399 09/22/2010 Klaus Lucka P20944USPC 4184 29078 7590 08/03/2017 fTTRTSTTANn ARFT EXAMINER Onsagers AS Munkedamsveien 35 MAINES, PATRICK DAVID P.O. Box 1813 Vika ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER Uslo, JN-U1Z5 NORWAY 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2017 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): post@onsagers.no christian.abel@onsagers.no cdabell 14@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KLAUS LUCKA and STEPHAN KOHNE Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Klaus Lucka and Stephan Kohne (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s May 15, 2014 final decision (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—8, 18—21, 32—35, 37, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2006/0059896 Al, published Mar. 23, 2006) and Koehne (US 6,793,693 Bl, issued Sept. 21, 2004).2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosure is directed to a particle filter apparatus having a particle filter that is regenerated by using a cold flame gas. Spec. 1:2—3. Claim 1, reproduced below (with paragraph structure added) from page 14 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Particle filter apparatus comprising a particle filter which is arranged in an exhaust gas conduit of an internal combustion engine, wherein the exhaust gas, containing particulate matter and soot, is cleaned when passing through the particle filter, the particle filter apparatus further comprising a cold flame vaporizer in which fuel is partially oxidized in preheated air to form a cold flame gas, wherein 2-20% of the calorific value of the fuel is released, the cold flame vaporizer being arranged in fluid communication with the exhaust conduit such that the cold 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cool Flame Technologies AS. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 9—17, 22—31, 36, and 39 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1. 2 Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 flame gas can flow through the particle filter, thereby removing deposits of soot which has accumulated in the particle filter. ANALYSIS Claims 1—8, 33, 35, and 38 The Examiner finds that Liu discloses a particle filter apparatus substantially as recited in independent claim 1, but that uses a thermal reformer to generate syngas, which is flowed through a particle filter to remove soot deposits therefrom. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Koehne discloses a cold flame vaporizer in which fuel is partially oxidized in preheated air to form a cold flame gas, which is “useful for applications relating to exhaust gas treatment.” Id. at 3^4 (citing, in relevant part, Koehne 9:39-43). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Koehne’s cold flame vaporizer in place of Liu’s thermal reformer as a mere substitution of prior art elements that both function to produce similar reactants (i.e., partially oxidizing a fuel source to thereby produce a reactant, an oxidant, and heat). Id. at 4, 20-21. The Examiner explains that because Liu’s thermal reformer and Koehne’s cold flame vaporizer both operate to produce the three necessary components for diesel particle filter regeneration (a reactant, an oxidant, and heat) by partially oxidizing a fuel source, these components are substitutable, thus rendering the claimed invention obvious. Id. at 21. Appellants traverse, arguing that, contrary to the Examiner’s interpretation, “Koehne does not teach that a cold flame can be used to treat an exhaust gas.” Appeal Br. 10. Rather, according to Appellants, Koehne discloses a “process . . . used to transform all of a liquid fuel to a gaseous 3 Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 fuel” so that liquid fuel can be used in gas engines. Id. Appellants also argue that Koehne’s cool flame gas is “very different” than Liu’s syngas. Id. at 9. Koehne recognizes a problem in known fuel combustion systems: when a fuel mixture contains “[ijnhomogeneities of any kind, e.g., distribution of the fuel/oxidant in a combustion chamber, [it] generally result[s] in the formation of pollutants.” Koehne 1:14—16. Koehne overcomes this problem by creating a “formation of liquid fuel and oxidant” using “the phenomenon of the cool flame.” Id. at 3:45—54, 4:34—35. Koehne’s process allows “important processes which can currently be operated exclusively on the basis of gases (mainly natural gas) [to] be extended to the use of liquid fuels.” Id. at 4:38 42. Koehne explains that its process creates a “homogeneous fuel gas/air mixture [that] enables the pollutant. . . emissions from combustion to be significantly reduced.” Id. 4:44-47. ft is the improved fuel mixture resulting from Koehne’s process that achieves a reduction in pollutants. Id. at 7:64—8:1. Using Koehne’s fuel/air mixture as fuel in an internal combustion engine, therefore, “results in a reduction of pollutants.” Id. at 12:66—13:17, Fig. 16. Accordingly, based on the entire disclosure of Koehne, we agree with Appellants that Koehne’s statement that “[e]xhaust gas aftertreatment is highly simplified by this application or may even be completely omitted” {id. at 9:40-42) refers to use of the generated cool flame gas as a fuel and the resulting reduction in the creation of pollutants, but does not suggest using cool flame gas itself as an exhaust aftertreatment, such as to regenerate an exhaust system particle filter. 4 Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 Having determined that Koehne does not disclose use of its produced fuel mixture as an exhaust aftertreatment, it appears that the only way Koehne’s cool flame generator can be equivalent to Liu’s thermal reformer, as determined by the Examiner, is if Koehne’s produced cool flame gas is equivalent to Liu’s produced syngas. We appreciate the Examiner’s position that the devices of Liu and Koehne are equivalent in the sense that they both produce a fuel and oxidant mixture. See Final Act. 20. However, as correctly noted by Appellants (see Appeal Br. 9), Koehne’s cool flame gas must undergo additional processing steps to be transformed into syngas. See, e.g., Koehne 11:53—59. Thus, the products produced by the two devices are not equivalent, and, therefore, we are persuaded that Koehne’s cool flame generator is not a mere substitute for Liu’s thermal reformer. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims 2—8, 33, 35, and 38 as being obvious over Liu and Koehne. Claims 18—21, 34, 37, and 40 Independent claim 18 recites a method for cleaning a particle filter including the step of letting a cold flame gas flow through the filter. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 18 in the same manner as claim 1 (Final Act. 9-10), and Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12). Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above regarding the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 or its dependent claims 19-21, 34, 37, and 40 as being obvious over Liu and Koehne. 5 Appeal 2015-006368 Application 12/675,399 Claim 32 Independent claim 32 recites a method for regeneration of a particle filter wherein a cold flame gas is flowed through the particle filter. Id. at 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 32 in the same manner as claim 1 (Final Act. 13), and Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13). Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above regarding the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 32 as being obvious over Liu and Koehne. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8, 18—21, 32—35, 37, 38, and 40 is reversed. REVERSED 6