Ex Parte Arnold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

11946653 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
11/946,653 11/28/2007 Steven Don Arnold H0017206 9566
93136 7590 03/29/2017
HONEYWETI ,/PANGRT E
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
brian@ppbdlaw.com
sherry, vallabh @honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN DON ARNOLD, PETER DAVIES,
BAPTISTE SZCZYRBA, DAMIEN MARSAL,
and THOMAS DELTOMBES
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Steven Don Arnold et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 11, 12, 14, and 16. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a center housing and bearing and shaft
wheel assembly for turbochargers. Spec. 1, Title. Claim 7, the only
independent claim, is reproduced below:
7. A center housing rotating assembly (CHRA) for a
turbocharger, the CHRA comprising:
a ball bearing cartridge and shaft subassembly that
comprises material removal cuts that balance the subassembly as
a unit wherein a turbine end portion of the shaft comprises an
outer diameter approximately equal to or greater than an outer
diameter of an outer race of the ball bearing cartridge, wherein
an inner race of the ball bearing cartridge is fixed to the shaft,
wherein ball bearings are disposed between the inner race and
the outer race, and wherein an axial position of the outer race
with respect to the ball bearings and an axial position of the inner
race with respect to the end of the turbine end portion of the shaft
define an axial dimension of a balancing clamp gap that exists
between the turbine end portion of the shaft and an end of the
outer race; and
a center housing that comprises a compressor end and a
turbine end and a through bore that comprises a turbine end
opening that receives the ball bearing cartridge and shaft
subassembly as an assembled balanced unit wherein the axial
dimension and a radial dimension of the balancing clamp gap
define a fluid passage that is in fluid communication with a space
between the inner race and the outer race.
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
REFERENCES
Bergeron US 4,599,862
Figura WO 2006/005355 A1
July 15, 1986
Jan. 19, 2006
2
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bergeron.2 3
2. Claims 11, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bergeron and Figura.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 7 and 14 as Anticipated By Bergeron
Appellants argue claims 7 and 14 as a group. Appeal Br. 5—9. We
select claim 7 as the representative claim, and claim 14 stands or falls with
claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Bergeron discloses all of the limitations of
claim 7, including a center housing 12 that comprises a compressor end 26
and a turbine end 18 and a through bore 42 that comprises a turbine end
opening that receives the ball bearing cartridge 16 and shaft subassembly 14
as an assembled balanced unit. Advisory Action, mailed July 11, 2014, 2;
Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellants argue that Bergeron is non-enabling (Reply Br. 4),
and discloses an inoperable turbocharger because “Bergeron does not show
how ‘the shaft and bearing assembly (14, 16) [are] received within the
2 The Final Action states that claims 1—3 are rejected as anticipated by
Bergeron. Final Act. 7—4. Based upon the references to claim 7 and 14 in
the rejection and in the arguments in the Appeal Brief, we understand the
reference to claims 1—3 is a typographical error. Id.; Appeal Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
opening and bore 42 of the housing 12’. The possibilities are manifold.”
Appeal Br. 8; see id. at 7—8; Reply Br. 2—\. However, Bergeron is presumed
to be operable. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980). Appellants’
assertions that Bergeron’s figures and cutaway views are ambiguous and do
not show how the shaft is mounted, and that the direction of air flow in
Bergeron shows an inoperable turbocharger, are unsupported attorney
argument. See Appeal Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2—3; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument of inoperability, Bergeron discloses
that the turbocharger 10 “has a housing 12 supporting a shaft 14 therein on a
pair of ball bearings 16 for rotation. One end of the shaft 14 is connected to
a turbine 18 which is rotated by exhaust gases 20 . . . The opposite end of the
shaft 14 is connected to a compressor 26.” Bergeron 1:62—67 (emphasis
omitted). Bergeron does not disclose any operability issues with the
turbocharger, the shaft, or the ball bearings.
We agree with the Examiner that “FIG. 1 of Bergeron shows the shaft
and bearing assembly (14, 16) received within the opening and bore 42 of
the housing 12. The right hand side of the shaft 14 by seal 40 and the
extension of the shaft 14 that extends into the turbine are clearly received by
the bore and opening as they are shown in FIG. 1.” Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3.
Appellants’ argument of inoperability is unpersuasive.
Second, Appellants argue that Figure 1 of Bergeron does not disclose
how a through bore and turbine end opening receive the ball bearing
cartridge and shaft subassembly as an assembled unit. Appeal Br. 8—9.
According to Appellants, “one may only speculate as to how [Bergeron]
could possibly be assembled” and “the opening to the right of the turbine 18
4
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
is too small to receive the shaft 14 and the pair of ball bearings 16 (left) and
16 (right).” Id. at 9. The Examiner correctly notes that claim 7 “does not
limit or describe in any way ‘how’ the assembly is received by the bore,”
and the “process” and “manner” in which Bergeron is assembled is not
claimed. Ans. 4. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 7. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating
limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).
We agree with the Examiner that Bergeron’s bore 42 receives the
shaft and bearing in an assembled and balanced state. Ans. 5; Bergeron, Fig.
1. The Examiner also determines that “this assembly would be in a balanced
position in order to operate correctly and efficiently, as well as to avoid
damage due to unbalance rotation during operation.” Id. Appellants do not
address the Examiner’s articulated reasoning, and, thus, do not show
Examiner error.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings regarding
Bergeron are “based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Appeal
Br. 8. However, the rejection of claim 7 is based on anticipation by
Bergeron, and, as discussed above, the Examiner’s findings as to where each
element is disclosed in the prior art are supported by explicit teachings in
Bergeron. Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention,
thereby obviating Appellants’ assertion of hindsight. See In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of
error.
5
Appeal 2015-006312
Application 11/946,653
Finally, Appellants argue that “Bergeron does not disclose a
turbocharger as described in the instant application . . . ; rather it only
discloses a ‘turbocharger’ where exhaust flows axially to a turbine wheel
and then radially outwardly therefrom.” Reply Br. 3; Appeal Br. 8.
Claim 7, however, does not recite the direction of air flow. Appellants’
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7. See In re Self, 671
F.2d at 1348.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 7 is sustained. Claim 14
falls with claim 1.
The Rejection of Claims 11, 12, and 16
as Unpatentable Over Bergeron and Figura
Claims 11, 12, and 16 depend from claim 7. Appellants argue that,
because the Examiner’s findings regarding independent claim 7 are
erroneous, the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for dependent claims 11, 12, and 16. Appeal Br. 9—10. As
none of Appellants’ arguments are convincing, as discussed supra, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, 12, and 16 as unpatentable over
Bergeron and Figura.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 11, 12,
14, and 16 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6