Albrecht Nestle

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

15005142 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020)

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.
15/005,142 01/25/2016 Albrecht Nestle 2014P00496US 5605
16284 7590 02/04/2020
SKF GmbH
IA & IP
Gunnar-Wester-Strasse 12
Schweinfurt, 97421
GERMANY
EXAMINER
PILKINGTON, JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ipr@skf.com
skf_notification@jtek-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALBRECHT NESTLE

Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12–19, and 21–23, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Aktiebolaget
SKF. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification “is directed to a rolling-element bearing cage made
of a plurality of cage segments assembled into an annular structure. Each
cage segment includes at least two adjacent receiving pockets, and each
receiving pocket is delimited by two adjacent bridges.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A rolling-element bearing cage comprising a plurality of
cage segments,
each cage segment including at least two adjacent
receiving pockets, and
each receiving pocket being delimited by a front cage
bridge having a front running surface for contacting a rolling
element and a rear cage bridge having a rear running surface for
contacting the rolling element,
wherein the front running surface and the rear running
surface of at least one of the at least two adjacent receiving
pockets are asymmetric relative to a center plane that divides the
at least one of the at least two adjacent receiving pockets, and
wherein each of the plurality of cage segments includes a
first circumferential ring segment and a second circumferential
ring segment radially inside the first circumferential ring
segment.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 10, 12–16, 18, 21, and 222 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Husten3 in view of Aramaki.4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Husten in view of Aramaki and Fukami.5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 17, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Husten in view of Aramaki and Omoto.6
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error in this
rejection because the Examiner has not set forth an adequate reason to
support the combination of art proposed.
With respect to claim 1, for example, the Examiner finds that Husten
discloses a rolling-element bearing cage as claimed, except that Husten does
not disclose a front running surface and a rear running surface of the
receiving pockets that “are asymmetric relative to a center plane that divides
the at least one of the at least two adjacent receiving pockets.” Final Act. 2–
3. Regarding this claim requirement, the Examiner relies on Aramaki. Id.
at 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds and concludes:
Aramaki teaches a bearing cage having a pocket with front
and rear running surfaces that are shaped to define an asymmetric

2 We note that the Examiner also lists claim 8 in the heading for this
rejection. Final Act. 2. However, claim 8 is not discussed in the body of
this rejection and is separately rejected. See id. at 8.
3 Husten et al., US 3,652,141, iss. Mar. 28, 1972.
4 Aramaki, JP 6280863 A, pub. Oct. 7, 1994.
5 Fukami, US 8,814,440 B2, iss. Aug. 26, 2014.
6 Omoto et al., US 8,905,646 B2, iss. Dec. 9, 2014.
Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142

4
pocket (see Figures 3 and 5) relative to a center plane that divides
the pocket for the purpose of preventing sliding of the cage to
avoid smearing (see translated abstract provided by Applicant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of filing to modify Husten and use an
asymmetric cage pocket defined by the front and rear surfaces,
as taught Aramaki, for the purpose of preventing sliding of the
cage to avoid smearing.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established adequately
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the problems
addressed in Aramaki are an issue in Husten’s design, such that it would
have been obvious to modify Husten’s bearing cage in view of Aramaki’s
teachings. See Appeal Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant asserts, and the
Examiner appears to agree, that Aramaki and Husten are directed to two
different bearing cage designs, i.e. a radial bearing cage and a thrust bearing
cage, respectively. Id. at 3–4; see also Ans. 3. Further, Appellant asserts
that Aramaki seeks to solve problems specifically related to the way the
rolling elements move in a radial bearing cage and the loads that result from
such movement, i.e. sliding that causes the problem of smearing. Appeal Br.
at 5; see also Ans. 5 (agreeing that the two types of bearing cages “operate
under different loading”). Appellant asserts that the record does not show or
suggest that Husten’s design suffers from the same problems or even the
same loads as the radial bearing cage of Aramaki. Appeal Br. 5–6. Thus,
Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the
Examiner’s reason for making the proposed modification. Id.
We agree with Appellant. An obviousness rejection must be based
on “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142

5
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). Here, we agree that the Examiner has not set forth adequate
evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to modify Husten in view of the teachings relied upon in Aramaki.
Notably, the Examiner acknowledges the differences in the types of bearing
cages taught in Husten and Aramaki, as described by Appellant. In spite of
this evidence of the differences in the art, the Examiner only asserts that “the
same or similar effects” in Aramaki’s design could or may still occur in a
thrust bearing such that “Husten could benefit from using the asymmetric
pockets being taught by Aramaki.” Ans. 3–4. Yet, there is no evidence in
the record indicating how an asymmetric design would affect the operation
of Husten’s bearing cage.
Further, Aramaki’s device is designed to prevent a cage from sliding,
such that smearing is prevented. See Aramaki Abstract. Although the
Examiner indicates that such sliding is present in thrust bearings, even to the
extent that is true, Husten discloses an advantage of the disclosed design is
that it prevents sliding so that wear does not occur. See Husten col. 2, ll. 5–
10, 54–66. Thus, even if sliding occurs in thrust bearings generally, Husten
indicates that this is not an issue in the particular thrust bearing cage
disclosed.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner has not set
forth an articulated reason with adequately-supported underpinnings to
support the conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 10, 12–16, 18, 21, and 22, which rely on the same
reasoning by the Examiner.
Appeal 2018-004735
Application 15/005,142

6
Rejections 2 and 3
Regarding the rejections of claims 8, 17, 19, and 23, the Examiner
does not indicate how the art of record cures the deficiencies in the rejection
of the independent claims, as discussed above. Accordingly, we also do not
sustain the rejections of claims 8, 17, 18, and 23.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12–19, and 21–
23.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 10,
12–16, 18,
21, 22
103 Husten,
Aramaki
1–4, 6,
10, 12–
16, 18,
21, 22
8 103 Husten,
Aramaki,
Fukami
8
17, 19, 23 103 Husten,
Aramaki,
Omoto
17, 19,
23
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8,
10, 12–
19, 21–
23

REVERSED