Ex Parte Gokhale

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11095441 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MANOJ PRAKASH GOKHALE
____________________

Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20-25, and 28-31. App. Br. 5.
Claims 9, 11, and 19 were objected to. Final Rej. 9; Ans. 3. Claims 26 and
27 were allowed. Final Rej. 9. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, 12, 15, 22, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a compression-
ignition engine, comprising:
adjusting timing of fuel injection if a sensed
parameter indicative of a maximum pressure
associated with a top dead center within a
combustion chamber varies relative to a
preselected pressure and if a fuel injection timing
is greater than a preselected timing; wherein the
maximum pressure associated with the top dead
center within the combustion chamber is controlled
by adjusting timing of fuel injection.

THE REJECTIONS
Appellant requests review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maeda
(JP 05099100 A; pub. Apr. 20, 1993);
2. Claims 6, 7, 10, 12-15, 20-25, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda and Chen (US 6,286,480 B1; iss. Sep.
11, 2001);
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

3

3. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda
and Design Choice;
4. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda
and Cornell (US 6,560,963 B2; iss. May 13, 2003);
5. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maeda, Chen, and Gallagher (US 6,295,816 B1; iss. Oct. 2, 2001); and
6. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maeda, Chen, and Shea (US 6,945,047 B2; iss. Sep. 20, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-5 – Maeda
Independent claim 1 recites “adjusting timing of fuel injection if a
sensed parameter indicative of a maximum pressure associated with a top
dead center within a combustion chamber varies relative to a preselected
pressure.” The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Maeda discloses a chamber
pressure (labeled as point “B” in the annotated copy of Figure 2 of Maeda at
page 14 of the Examiner’s Answer) corresponding to actual fuel injection
timing “T”, and that the chamber pressure B is indicative of a maximum
pressure associated with a top dead center of a combustion chamber. Ans.
13-14. The Examiner also found that Figure 2 of Maeda discloses a
chamber pressure (labeled as point “A” in the annotated copy)
corresponding to target fuel injection timing “V”, and that the chamber
pressure A is a preselected pressure. Id. The Examiner found that pressure
at point B varies relative to the pressure at point A, and that the method of
Maeda adjusts timing of fuel injection based in part on these varied
pressures. Ans. 13-15.
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

4

Appellant contends that Maeda fails to teach adjusting timing of fuel
injection based in part on the variation of maximum pressure at the top dead
center relative to a pre-selected pressure. App. Br. 6-8. As correctly noted
by Appellant, Maeda discloses determining a crank rotational angle (“Q”)
corresponding to fuel injection start timing, determining a crank rotational
angle (“U”) corresponding to the maximum pressure (“P0”) associated with
a top dead center of the combustion chamber, calculating the actual fuel
injection timing T from the crank rotational angles Q and U, and comparing
the actual fuel injection timing T to a target fuel injection timing V. App.
Br. 7-8; Maeda 5-8.1 A fuel injection timing regulating means can adjust the
actual fuel injection timing T with respect to the crank angle of the crank
shaft of the engine. See Maeda 7.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not make a finding
supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Maeda discloses
adjusting timing of fuel injection “if a sensed parameter indicative of a
maximum pressure associated with a top dead center within a combustion
chamber varies relative to a preselected pressure,” as recited in claim 1.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the chamber pressure at point B in the
annotated copy of Maeda’s Figure 2 is not indicative of a maximum pressure
associated with a top dead center within the combustion chamber, but
instead is indicative of the chamber pressure at the starting time of fuel
injection. See Maeda 5. As noted above, the maximum pressure associated
with a top dead center within the combustion chamber is denoted as P0 in
Figure 2 of Maeda. See Maeda 5. Additionally, the Examiner did not make

1 All references herein to Maeda are to the English-language translation
thereof.
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

5

a finding that the pressure at point B is actually determined in the method of
Maeda, or that this pressure is used in a calculation done in the method to
determine whether the timing of fuel injection should be adjusted. See
Maeda 5-7. Finally, while the maximum pressure P0 of the chamber is
determined in the method of Maeda, Maeda does not disclose that the
method adjusts the timing of fuel injection based on whether the pressure P0
is varied relative to any preselected pressure. Id. Instead, the fuel injection
timing appears to be adjusted only when the start time of the fuel injection is
varied relative to a desired fuel injection start time. Id. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-5.

Rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 12-15, 20-25, and 28-31 – Maeda and Chen
Claims 10 and 29
Claim 10 recites the limitation “retarding timing…of fuel injection
into the compression-ignition engine if an actual peak pressure exceeds a
predetermined peak pressure within a combustion chamber.”2 The
Examiner’s findings (Ans. 6, 7, 15-17) and Appellant’s arguments (App. Br.
9) regarding Maeda in relation to claim 10 are the same as those discussed
supra for claim 1. Thus, we find that Maeda fails to disclose the “retarding
timing” step recited in claim 10.
The Examiner also found that Chen teaches retarding the timing of
fuel injection if the actual value of a sensed parameter indicative of the
maximum pressure associated with a top dead center within the combustion
chamber exceeds an expected value indicative of the maximum pressure.

2 We note that Appellant’s Specification appears to describe the terms “peak
pressure” and “maximum pressure” interchangeably. See, e.g., Spec. 2-8.
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

6

Ans. 7. We agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner did not make
a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen teaches
retarding fuel injection timing based on a variation in the peak pressure
within a combustion chamber, as required in claim 10. App. Br. 9-10.
Rather, Chen teaches retarding fuel injection timing based on variation in
barometric pressure surrounding the engine, as sensed by a barometric
pressure sensor. Id.; Chen, col. 4, l. 58 – col. 5, l. 6. As such, Chen does not
cure the deficiencies of Maeda. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10,
and its dependent claim 29.
Claims 12-14
Claim 12 is directed to a method of operating an engine including
retarding fuel injection timing. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions
(Ans. 6, 7, 17) and Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 10-11) regarding Maeda
and Chen in relation to claim 12 appear to be the same as those discussed
supra for the rejections of claims 1 and 10. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12, and its dependent claims 13 and 14.
Claims 15, 20, 21, and 30
Claim 15 is directed to a controller configured to retard fuel injection
timing. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 6, 7, 17-19) and
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 11) regarding Maeda and Chen in relation
to claim 15 appear to be the same as those discussed supra for claims 1 and
10. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15, and its dependent
claims 20, 21, and 30.

Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

7

Claims 22-24 and 31
Claim 22 is directed to a method of manufacturing an engine
comprising providing a controller configured to control a maximum pressure
within a combustion chamber. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions
(Ans. 6, 7, 19) and Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 11-12) regarding Maeda
and Chen in relation to claim 22 appear to be the same as those discussed
supra for claims 1 and 10. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22,
and its dependent claims 23, 24, and 31.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is directed to a computer-readable medium that enables a
controller to control peak pressure within a combustion chamber. The
Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 6, 7, 19) and Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 12) regarding Maeda and Chen in relation to claim 25
are the same as those discussed supra for claims 1 and 10. Thus, we find
that Maeda and Chen fail to disclose or suggest the computer-readable
medium recited in claim 25. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 25.
Claims 6, 7 and 28
Claims 6, 7, and 28 depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s findings
(Ans. 6-7) regarding Maeda and Chen in relation to claims 6, 7, and 28 are
the same as those discussed supra for claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 7, and 28 for similar reasons as those discussed for
claims 1 and 10.

Rejections of claim 8 – Maeda and Design Choice; Maeda and Cornell
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. The Examiner’s findings (Ans. 8-10,
19) regarding Maeda in relation to claim 8 are the same as those discussed
Appeal 2010-005684
Application 11/095,441

8

supra for claim 1. The Examiner’s application of the Design Choice
rationale and of Cornell does not cure the deficiencies of Maeda. See Ans.
9, 10, 19. Thus, we do not sustain either rejection of claim 8 for similar
reasons as those discussed for claim 1.

Rejection of claims 16 and 17 – Maeda, Chen, and Gallagher
Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 15. The Examiner’s findings
(Ans. 10, 11, 20) regarding Maeda and Chen in relation to claims 16 and 17
are the same as those discussed supra for claim 15. The Examiner’s
application of Gallagher does not cure the deficiencies of Maeda and Chen.
See Ans. 10, 11, 20. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and
17.

Rejection of claim 18 – Maeda, Chen, and Shea
Claim 18 depends from claim 15. The Examiner’s findings (Ans. 11,
20) regarding Maeda and Chen in relation to claim 18 are the same as those
discussed supra for claim 15. The Examiner’s application of Shea does not
cure the deficiencies of Maeda and Chen. See Ans. 11, 20. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 18.

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20-25, and
28-31is REVERSED.

REVERSED
mls