Ex Parte Berhan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 2, 2017

13858225 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 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.
13/858,225 04/08/2013 Michael Tekletsion Berhan 83347460 2759
28866 7590 11/06/2017
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
BOES, TERENCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2017 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):
docketing @ mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL T. BERHAN
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—4, 8, 10, 11,21, and 22. Claims 12—20 have been cancelled.
Claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “kinematically
coupled gear assemblies,” and particularly, “gear assemblies that have gear
teeth of differing configurations” (Spec. 11).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A herringbone gear, comprising:
a first gear segment having a first set of teeth, and receptors
recessed into the first gear segment having triangular tapered
bottoms;
a second gear segment having a second set of teeth and keys
extending from the second gear segments into contact with the
respective bottoms;
wherein a length along a triangular peak of each of the bottoms
is greater than a maximum width of the corresponding key.
C. REJECTION
Claims 1—4, 8, 10, 11,21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2,748,618; issued June 5, 1956)
and Culpepper (US 6,746,172 B2; issued June 8, 2004).
II. ISSUES
The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Lee and Culpepper teaches or would have suggested a
herringbone gear comprising “receptors” recessed into a “first gear segment”
having “triangular tapered bottoms;” and “keys” extending from a “second
gear segment” in contact with the respective bottoms, wherein the length
2
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
along a triangular peak of each of the bottoms is greater than a maximum
width of the corresponding key, as recited in claim 1.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellant’s Invention
1. Appellant’s invention relates to kinematically coupled gear
assemblies, wherein Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below:
FIG. 3
Figure 2 shows a herringbone gear assembly 10 comprising gear
segments 50 and 60 in a pre-contact and pre-attachment condition, wherein
gear segment 50 includes keys 100 formed as equilateral triangles on its
inner surface (Spec. 126), while gear segment 70 includes receptors 110
from on its inner surface (Spec. 127). Figure 3 shows the herringbone gear
assembly of Figure 2 after contact, such that key 100 partially fits in receptor
110 {id. 128), wherein the length of receptor 110 is sized greater than the
3
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
diameter of the spherical profile 120 on the key 100 to allot the key
translation or linear movement in the receptor along line L {id. 129).
Lee
2. Lee discloses a herringbone gear assembly, wherein Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
//
22^<23
Figure 1 shows an upper herringbone gear assembly comprising a left-
hand gear section 10 and a right-hand gear section 11, adapted for closely
abutting relationship, and a lower herringbone gear assembly comprising a
web 19, and left-hand and right-hand gear bands 22 and 23 (Lee, col. 2,11.
11—41). As shown in Figure 1, the peripheries of gear sections 10 and 11 are
provided with oblique or helical teeth 12, such that the sections are
assembled so as to form composite V-shaped teeth (id., col. 2,11. 16—21).
The sections are bonded together by counter sunk cap screws 14, which
extend from the body portion of one section and engage aligned screw-
threaded recesses in the body portion of the opposite section {id. at col. 2,11.
23-26).
4
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
Culpepper
3. Culpepper discloses an adjustable kinematic coupling for accurate and
precision coupling of mechanical component parts (Culpepper, Abst.).
Culpepper recognizes that, though traditionally, precision components are
used to achieve accuracy and repeatability, thermal strain or creep may
require adjustment of the assembly interface {id., col. 1,11. 17—20). Thus,
Culpepper provides a kinematic interface to be used to adjust the coupled
components, thereby enabling multiple assembly combinations and/or
compensation for manufacturing errors in the coupling {id., col. 2,11. 57—62).
Figure 1 is reproduced below:
'>"b
Efb
&
Figure 1 shows an embodiment of an adjustable kinematic coupling
(decoupled), which includes concave elements (spaced grooves) 8a—c
attached to the inner surface 3 of one component 4 and convex elements
(balls) 6a—c attached to another component 2 {id., col. 5,11. 49-56). As
shown in the figure, the mating of the coupling is accomplished by bringing
FIG. .1
5
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
each ball 6a—c into contact with a corresponding grove 8a—c {id., col. 5,11.
59-64).
IV. ANALYSIS
As for independent claim 1, Appellant concedes “Culpepper teaches
partially sloping surfaces in grooves 8a, 8b, and 8c,” but contends “they are
not triangular and there is no triangular peak at the bottom of them” (App.
Br. 5—6). Further, Appellant contends Lee’s nuts and bolts 25 and 26 are
“accessible from both sides of the herringbone gear assembly” {id. at. 5).
According to Appellant, the bolts and nuts 25 and 26 of Lee “hold the bands
22, 23 and the web [19] together” wherein the bolts/nuts 25/26 “provide
access to both sides for tightening and loosening them, which allows for
quick securing and disassembling the gear bands 22, 23 to the web 19” {id.
at 6). Thus, Appellant contends “one skilled in the art would not find the
combination of Lee with Culpepper as recited in the office action as
obvious,” because the combination “eliminates this functionality from Lee”
{id.)
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions
regarding the Examiner’s rejections of the claims. On this record before us,
we agree the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and Culpepper.
Here, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Culpepper discloses
“receptors” and “keys” for “accurately and precisely coupling the gear
segments together” (Final Act. 2). That is, like Appellant’s invention (FF 1),
Culpepper discloses concave grooves (“receptors”) 8a—c recessed into a first
6
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
component 4 having “triangular tapered bottoms” and convex balls (“keys”)
6a—c extending from a second component 2 in contact with the respective
bottoms, wherein the length along the peak of each of the bottoms is greater
than a maximum width of the corresponding convex ball/key (FF 3).
We do not agree with Appellant’s contention that Culpepper’s
concave receptors “are not triangular and there is no triangular peak at the
bottom of them” (App. Br. 6). Instead, as shown in Figure 1 of Culpepper,
the grooves each comprises two sloping surfaces, which form a triangle with
a triangular peak at the bottom (FF 3). Thus, we find that the only clear
difference from Culpepper of the contested limitation is that the first and
second coupling components are not coupling components of a “herringbone
gear” (claim 1).
However, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Lee for the
disclosure of a herringbone gear comprising “first gear element (10) having
a first set of teeth” and “second gear element (11) having a second set of
teeth” (Final Act. 2). In particular, Lee discloses an upper herringbone gear
assembly comprising a left-hand gear section 10 and a right-hand gear
section 11, to be assembled so as to form composite V-shaped teeth (FF 2).
That is, Lee discloses that first and second coupling components 10 and 11
of a “herringbone gear” (id.).
We also find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Lee and “provide receptors and keys” as taught
by Culpepper, “for the purpose of precisely coupling the gear segments
together” (Final Act. 2). Although Appellant contends that it would not
have been obvious to combine Culpepper with the teachings of Lee because
the combination “eliminates this functionality from Lee” (App. Br. 6),
7
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
Appellant appears to view the combination in a different perspective than
that of the Examiner. That is, although Appellant contends that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would not have modified the teachings of Lee to
substitute the bolts and nuts 25 and 26 with the receptors and keys of
Culpepper, because the bolts and nuts 25 and 26 of Lee “hold the bands 22,
23 and the web together” which “allows for quick securing and
disassembling the gear bands 22, 23 to the web 19” {id. at 6), we note that
the Examiner relies on the gear sections 10 and 11 (and not gear bands 22
and 23) of Lee for teaching and suggesting the contested “first gear
segment” and “second gear segment” held together by screws 14 and
corresponding recesses. Thus, the issue here is whether the skilled artisan,
upon reading Culpepper’s teaching of using a kinematic interface with
corresponding receptors and keys to couple first and second components (LL
3), would have found it obvious to modify Lee’s coupling of first and second
gear segments 10 and 11 (LL 2) to include a kinematic interface with
corresponding receptors and keys.
We agree with the Examiner that “[b]oth the instant invention and Lee
are directed to holding gear halves together,” and “Culpepper is also
concerned with accurately and precisely holding together mechanical
components” (Ans. 7). We find that providing the receptors/keys coupling
as taught by Culpepper (LL 3) as a means to couple Lee’s first and second
gear elements (LL 2) is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements,
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform,
yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
8
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has
presented no evidence that applying Culpepper’s recess/key coupling means
as a means to couple Lee’s first and second gear segments was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
419-21). Nor has Appellant presented evidence that the claimed
combination of known elements would have yielded more than expected
results. Instead, as Culpepper recognizes, it would have been obvious to
apply Culpepper’s kinematic interface as a coupling means for accurate and
precision coupling of mechanical component parts to enable multiple
assembly combinations and/or compensation for manufacturing errors in the
various couplings (FF 3).
On this record, we find no error with the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time
the invention was made to combine the teachings of Lee and Culpepper
(Ans. 5—6). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and claim 10 falling therewith (App. Br. 6).
As to claims 2, 11, and 21, although Appellant contends that
Culpepper “does not allow” for “a fixed arrangement of the ends of the
convex elements 6a-6c and the concave elements 8a-8c” (App. Br. 7—8), we
agree with the Examiner that Appellant is arguing Culpepper separately
when the rejection is based on the combination of Lee and Culpepper and
what the combination teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary
9
Appeal 2017-003172
Application 13/858,225
skill in the art (Ans. 9). See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner finds, “[u]pon modification, the keys and
receptors of Culpepper would be fixed to the gear halves of Lee,” wherein
the resulting device “would possess keys and receptors fixed to first and
second gear halves respectively” (id.). On this record, we find no error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 11 and 21, and claims 3, 4, and 8
falling therewith (App. Br. 7).
With respect to claim 22, Appellant merely repeat the argument that
Culpepper’s grooves “are not triangular and there is no triangular peak at the
bottom of them” (App. Br. 9). As discussed above, we do not agree with
Appellant’s contention and instead find that, as shown in Figure 1 of
Culpepper, the grooves each comprises two sloping surfaces which form a
triangle with a triangular peak at the bottom (FF 3). Thus, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 22.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 10, 11,21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10