Edgar PickelDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 11, 20202019006545 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/005,240 01/25/2016 Edgar Pickel 2014P00389US 1065 130169 7590 05/11/2020 Garcia-Zamor Intellectual Property Law, LLC (on behalf of SKF GmbH) 12960 Linden Church Road Clarksville, MD 21029 EXAMINER MORRIS, DAVID R. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3659 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2020 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): bryan@garcia-zamor.com ipr@skf.com ruy@garcia-zamor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDGAR PICKEL Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 Technology Center 3600 Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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. 2. 2 Claims 2–19 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a driveline located between a rotor and a generator of a wind turbine, the driveline including a planetary gear unit. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is sole pending claim. 1. A wind turbine comprising: a wind turbine rotor; a wind turbine generator; a driveline configured to connect the wind turbine rotor and the wind turbine generator, the driveline including a planetary gear unit and at least one rolling-element bearing, the planetary gear unit having a planet carrier rotatably supported relative to a housing part by the at least one rolling-element bearing, the at least one rolling- element bearing including at least one inner ring and at least one outer ring, and a plurality of rolling elements disposed between the at least one inner ring and the at least one outer ring, wherein the at least one rolling-element bearing includes spacer elements disposed between adjacent pairs of the plurality of rolling elements, the spacer elements each having lateral running surfaces comprising a first running surface and a second running surface for guiding one of the plurality of rolling elements, and wherein, apart from the spacer elements and components thereof, a region between the at least one inner and the at least one outer bearing rings includes no cage elements thereby the at least one rolling-element bearing is a non-separable unit, wherein the plurality of rolling elements have a hardened and ground surface that prevents black oxidation of the plurality of rolling elements, wherein the spacer elements, each of which is disposed between the bearing rings, are injection molded spacer elements comprised of polyether ether ketone, the lateral running surfaces configured as complementary to a shape of the plurality of rolling elements, the spacer elements extending with radially outer ends beyond a pitch circle having a pitch circle diameter and Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 3 extending with radially inner ends below the pitch circle to hold the parts of the at least one rolling-element bearing together even when the at least one inner ring is removed, the spacer elements being connected to one another by a connecting element, the connecting element being a cord or cable that prevents the parts of the at least one rolling-element bearing from separating during removal of the parts of the at least one rolling-element bearing from the driveline, wherein the at least one rolling-element bearing comprises two axially spaced tapered roller bearings being axially preloaded against each other. Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lockwood US 1,144,484 June 29, 1915 Bott US 1,765,648 June 24, 1930 Damato US 2011/0059418 A1 Mar. 10, 2011 Boland US 2014/0045644 A1 Feb. 13, 2014 Hoffman DE 10 2012 223 317 A13 June 18, 2014 REJECTION Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Boland, Hoffman, Bott, Damato, and Lockwood. 3 Our citations to Hoffman refer to the English-language translation made of record on January 16, 2019. Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 4 OPINION The Examiner finds that Boland discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including a wind turbine rotor, a wind turbine generator, and a driveline with a planetary gear unit. Final Act. 3 (citing Boland ¶ 23, Figs. 1–3). The Examiner finds that Boland does not disclose injection molded spacer elements that are connected to one another by a connecting element as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner relies on Hoffman to remedy this deficiency. Id. (citing Hoffman ¶¶ 12, 22 (“cage segments 5”)). The Examiner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the spacer elements and connecting element disclosed by Hoffman in the planetary gear unit of Boland “to improve the handling of the bearing during assembly, as well as reduce cost by minimizing the number of rolling elements in the bearing.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner relies on Bott to disclose certain physical properties of rolling elements, Damato to disclose the use of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) plastic in a bearing cage, and Lockwood to disclose two axially spaced tapered roller bearings to remedy other deficiencies in Boland’s disclosure. Final Act. 5–6. Appellant argues that Hoffman’s discussion of “injection molding” in paragraph 22 fails to support the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant states, [the] passing reference to “injection molding tools” in Paragraph 22 of Hoffman does not amount to any instruction with respect to a “suitable construction of the spacer piece” as noted in paragraph [0019] of the specification as filed, let alone the recited “the spacer elements, each of which is disposed between the bearing rings, are injection molded spacer elements comprised of polyether ether keton[e].” Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 5 Id. Thus, Appellant asserts that that Hoffman’s disclosure of injection molding is insufficient to teach a “suitable construction” as described in Appellant’s Specification and that Hoffman fails to teach spacer elements comprised of PEEK. Appellant also argues, “the reasoning of Examiner Morris asserted in the Office action is in error because the ‘injection molding tools’ of Hoffman fail to detail to any level configuration, let alone the recited structure of the claim 1 spacer element.” Id. Appellant then quotes the entire penultimate paragraph of claim 1, with emphasis, on page 11, and again on page 12, of the Appeal Brief and asserts that Hoffman fails to disclose the limitations recited. The Examiner responds that paragraph 22 of Hoffman supports a finding that cage elements 5 of Hoffman are made via injection molding4 because the disclosure of Hoffman, in general, is drawn to cage elements (spacer elements). See Ans. 5–6. Referring to paragraphs 20–23 of Hoffman, the Examiner states, “[t]he context that surrounds paragraph 0022 of Hoffman also indicates that the injection molding discussion was in reference to the spacer elements specifically.” Id. In reply, Appellant again quotes the entire second-to-last paragraph of claim 1, with extensive portions emphasized, and states, “the cited references do not amount to any instruction” to teach or suggest these 4 The Examiner also presents an alternative version of the rejection, interpreting the “injection molding” limitation in claim 1 as a product-by- process limitation and stating “this limitation is given less patentable weight than structural limitations of the claim.” Ans. 6. Our Decision does not rely on this interpretation of claim 1. Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 6 limitations. Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant concludes the arguments in the Reply Brief by stating the cited references (including Hoffman) fail to detail to any level configuration for spacer elements, let alone the recited structure of the claim 1 spacer element. That is, the cited references (including Hoffman) fail to disclose, teach, or suggest “the spacer elements” as listed herein by omitting (a) being disposed between the bearing rings, (b) being injection molded polyether ether ketone, (c) extending with radially outer ends beyond a pitch circle having a pitch circle diameter and extending with radially inner ends below the pitch circle to hold the parts of the at least one rolling-element bearing together even when the at least one inner ring is removed, (d) being connected to one another by a connecting element, and (e) including the connecting elements being a cord or cable that prevents the parts of the at least one rolling-element bearing from separating during removal of the parts of the at least one rolling element bearing from the driveline. Reply Br. 2–3 (emphasis added). The Examiner has the better position. Appellant provides no explanation as to why the reference in the Specification to “suitable construction” (see Spec. ¶ 19) patentably distinguishes cage elements 5 of Hoffman. Further, as the Examiner correctly notes, the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, but limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to Appellant’s assertion that Hoffman fails to disclose spacers made from PEEK, this argument does not address the rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action, which relies on Damato, not Hoffman, to disclose the use of PEEK in a bearing assembly. See Final Act. 5–6. Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 7 As for the requirement that the recited spacer elements be injection molded, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Hoffman’s cage segments 5 are made via this process. Paragraphs 20– 23 of Hoffman provide context that reasonably discloses that the injection molding process disclosed therein applies to cage segments 5. Hoffman states: By using individual separate cage segments, the flexibility of the roll cage composite is advantageously increased. The proposed solution thus further increases the degree of flexibility of the cage system. Furthermore, it is possible to reduce costs, since injection molding tools can be used, which require a smaller space than in previously known solutions. Hoffman ¶¶ 21–22 (emphasis added). We understand paragraphs 21 and 22 of Hoffman, when read together, to disclose that the cage segments are the proposed solution, and (ii) the proposed solution encourages the use of injection molding. Therefore, cage segments allow the use of injection molding (i.e., cage segments 5 of Hoffman are made via injection molding). In this regard, Hoffman explicitly discloses that cage segments 5 can be formed as a one-piece component and can be made of plastic. See id. ¶¶ 11– 12. As for Appellant’s contention that “the cited references” fail to disclose elements (a)–(d), the Examiner finds Boland and Damato teach elements (a) and (b), respectively. See Final Act. 3, 5–7. The Examiner relies on Hoffman to teach elements (c)–(e). See id. at 3–5. Appellant’s bare contention that the references do not disclose all the elements of claim 1 does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably Appeal 2019-006545 Application 15/005,240 8 interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Boland, Hoffman, Bott, Damato, Lockwood 1 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation