Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2014

12558752 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2014)

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.
12/558,752 09/14/2009 Yinyan Huang 81178567 7110
28395 7590 06/10/2014
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
FORREST, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2014 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 and
CHRISTINE KAY LAMBERT
________________

Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 15, 16, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
Appellants claim a multi-functional catalyst block and a method for
reducing pollutants in combustion engine exhaust. Claims 1 and 9 are
illustrative:
1. A multi-functional catalyst block for reducing waste materials in an
exhaust flow from a combustion engine, comprising:
a substrate;
a urea-hydrolyzing catalyst supported on the substrate; and
a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst supported on the
substrate and positioned downstream of the urea-hydrolyzing catalyst in a
direction of the exhaust flow.

9. A multi-functional catalyst block for reducing waste materials in an
exhaust flow from a combustion engine, comprising:
a substrate supporting a mixture of a urea-hydrolyzing catalyst and a
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst.

The References
Pfeifer et al. (Pfeifer) US 2002/0054844 A1 May 9, 2002
Patchett (Patchett ʼ843) US 2006/0039843 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Patchett (Patchett ʼ597) US 7,229,597 B2 Jun. 12, 2007
Caudle et al. (Caudle) US 2008/0292519 A1 Nov. 27, 2008
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
5, 7, 19 and 20 over Pfeifer in view of Patchett ʼ843, claim 8 over Pfeifer in
view of Patchett ʼ843 and Patchett ʼ597, claims 9-11 and 15 over Pfeifer in
Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752

3
view of Caudle and Patchett ʼ843, and claim 16 over Pfeifer in view of
Caudle, Patchett ʼ843 and Patchett ʼ597.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
Appellants argue the claims in the following groups: 1) claims 1-3, 7,
8, 19 and 20, 2) claims 4 and 5, and 3) claims 9-11, 15 and 16 (App. Br. 5-
10).1 We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in each group, i.e.,
claims 1, 4 and 9. The other claims in each group stand or fall with the
claim we address. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Claim 1
Pfeifer discloses “an exhaust gas treatment unit for the selective
catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides under lean exhaust gas conditions
which contains at least one catalyst with catalytically active components for
selective catalytic reduction (SCR components)” (¶ 0001). The SCR
components preferably are in the form of a coating on a catalytically inert
honeycomb’s flow channel walls (¶ 0015). The nitrogen oxides are reduced
by ammonia obtained by catalytic hydrolysis of urea (¶¶ 0002-03; 0017). In
one embodiment the urea hydrolysis takes place at the SCR component-
containing catalyst (4) (¶ 0023; Fig. 2). In another embodiment the
ammonia is generated at a hydrolyzation catalyst (7) upstream of the SCR
component-containing catalyst (4) (¶ 0024; Fig. 3). “The dedicated
hydrolyzation catalyst (7) improves hydrolyzation of urea to ammonia and

1 Although Appellants address claims 8 and 16 under a separate heading,
Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of those claims (App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752

4
thus improves overall exhaust gas cleaning efficiency of the exhaust gas
treatment unit” (¶ 0025).
Patchett ‘843 discloses “an emissions treatment system and method
for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in the exhaust stream
produced from an internal combustion engine” (¶ 0001). The system
includes an SCR catalyst and a downstream ammonia-destruction catalyst on
a single substrate to save space (¶ 0056).
Appellants argue that neither Pfeifer nor Patchett ʼ843 discloses the
claimed catalyst structure (App. Br. 5).
That argument is deficient in that Appellants are attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young,
403 F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCPA 1968).
Appellants list save space techniques which, Appellants argue, are
more plausible than placing Pfeifer’s urea hydrolyzation and SCR catalysts
on the same substrate (App. Br. 5-6).
Appellants provide no evidence supporting the argued relative
plausibility of the space-saving techniques. Arguments of counsel cannot
take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979); In re Greenfield,
571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974). Regardless, the existence of other space-saving techniques
does not diminish the space-saving benefit of placing Pfeifer’s urea
hydrolyzation and SCR catalysts on the same substrate.
Appellants argue that Pfeifer fails to recognize Appellants’ recognized
problem of urea inactivation of the SCR catalyst (App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752

5
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness does not require that
references solve the same problem solved by Appellants. See In re Kemps,
97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc);
In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). One of ordinary skill in
the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have placed
Pfeifer’s urea hydrolyzation catalyst (7) upstream of the SCR catalyst (4) to
improve exhaust gas cleaning efficiency as taught by Pfeifer (¶ 0025) and, in
view of Patchett ‘ʼ43 (¶ 0056), would have placed them on the same
substrate to save space. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ”).
Claim 4
Appellants argue that the references would not have suggested an
upstream zone containing as least 90 wt% urea-hydrolyzing catalyst and a
downstream zone containing at least 90 wt% SCR catalyst (App. Br. 8).
Pfeifer indicates that the upstream catalyst is 100 wt% hydrolyzing
catalyst and the downstream catalyst is 100 wt% SCR catalyst (¶ 0025).
Claim 9
Appellants argue that Caudle mixes two catalysts for the same
catalytic reaction, not catalysts such as an SCR catalyst and a urea
hydrolyzation catalyst having vastly different catalytic functions (App.
Br. 8-9).
Pfeifer’s disclosure that, as an alternative to placing a urea
hydrolyzation catalyst upstream of an SCR catalyst, the urea hydrolysis can
Appeal 2012-011929
Application 12/558,752

6
take place at the SCR catalyst (¶¶ 0023, 0025) indicates that the urea
hydrolyzation catalyst can be mixed with the SCR catalyst.
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-5, 7, 19 and 20 over
Pfeifer in view of Patchett ʼ843, claim 8 over Pfeifer in view of
Patchett ʼ843 and Patchett ʼ597, claims 9-11 and 15 over Pfeifer in view of
Caudle and Patchett ʼ843, and claim 16 over Pfeifer in view of Caudle,
Patchett ʼ843 and Patchett ʼ597 are affirmed.
It is ordered that Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

lp