Ex Parte Bulling et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2018

13809404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/809,404 01/09/2013 Johannes Bulling
145572 7590 08/22/2018
MCCOY RUSSELL LLP
806 SW BROADWAY
SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205-3335
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LSG12332PCTUS 8861
EXAMINER
GALLION, MICHAELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2018 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 JOHANNES BULLING and ERICH HARSCH
Appeal2016-007508
Application 13/809 ,404
Technology Center 3600
Before LISAM. GUIJT, BRADLEYB. BAY AT, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on August 14, 2018.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Liebherr-Components
Biberach GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated March 25, 2015.
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A winch, comprising:
a winch drum arranged on a drum shaft;
at least one main drive driving the drum shaft, the main drive
arranged coaxially with the winch drum shaft; and
at least one emergency drive driving the drum shaft in case
of emergency, the emergency drive comprising a drive wheel,
wherein at least one emergency drive is coupleable to a
driven wheel of the drum shaft as required via at least one
intermediate gear, the intermediate gear in constant engagement
with the emergency drive, via the drive wheel, independent of a
current position of the intermediate gear and shiftably mounted
for coupling in and out in a direction of its shaft axis, the driven
wheel arranged on the drum shaft between the winch drum and
the main drive.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Somerville (DE 2709089; published
Sept. 8, 1977)3 and Cundy (US 4,974,814; issued Dec. 4, 1990).
3 We refer to the corresponding US Patent 4,132,387, issued January 2,
1989, as Somerville, which is identified by the Examiner as the English
language translation of DE 2709089. See Ans. 2. The Examiner's reference
to "Murray" is to the same inventor of DE 2709089 and US 4,132,287,
namely, William Murray Somerville. Id. Appellants acknowledge
reviewing Somerville "to gain a better understanding of the teachings [ of the
German corresponding patent]." Appeal Br. 9. Thus, we are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument that Appellants were "not given fair notice of the
actual grounds of rejection." Reply Br. 3--4.
2
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Somerville, Cundy, and Morse (US 2003/0127635 Al;
published July 10, 2003).
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Somerville, Cundy, and Weinberg (US 2008/0045374 Al;
published Feb. 21, 2008).
IV. Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Somerville, Cundy, and Macrander (US 3,661,279; issued
May 9, 1972).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10, and 19
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Somerville discloses a winch drum (i.e., winding drum 10) arranged on a
drum shaft (i.e., output shaft 112A) driven by at least one main drive (i.e.,
compensating motor 112) arranged coaxially with shaft 112A, as claimed.
Final Act. 2; see e.g., Somerville 2:46-49, 5:1-22, Fig. 3. The Examiner
finds that main motor 120 is coupleable to a driven wheel (i.e., gear 16) of
shaft 112A via at least one intermediate gear (i.e., gears 126, 128), as
claimed. Id.; see, e.g., Somerville, Fig. 3. The Examiner determines that
gears 126, 128 are in constant engagement with main motor 120, via gear
124, independent of a current position of gears 126, 128, as claimed. Id.; see
e.g., Somerville 5: 1-22, Fig. 3. In particular, the Examiner determines that
"when [main motor] (120) is engaged, via clutch (122) and gear (124),"
Somerville's gear 12 6 "reads on the constant engagement limitation." Ans.
3.
3
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
The Examiner determines that Somerville does not disclose that the
intermediate gear is shiftably mounted for coupling in and out in a direction
of its shaft axis, and the Examiner relies on Cundy for disclosing shiftably
mounting an intermediate gear (i.e., traveler gear Bl) for coupling in and out
in a direction of its shaft axis via a lever mechanism (i.e., cam-operated lever
22). Final Act. 3; see e.g., Cundy 5:50-6:24, Figs. 5-10. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to have provided [Somerville]
with the shiftable coupling in and out gear, as taught by Cundy, for the
purpose of saving energy of the emergency drive when not in use and
increasing the gear's fatigue life cycle." Id.; see also id. at 4 (explaining that
"Cundy' s gear acts as a clutch, and as such, would be recognized by one
skilled in the art as a replacement for Somerville's clutch 122"). The
Examiner explains that Cundy's teaching "would allow for the gear (126) to
be removed from contact with [gear] (124) thus increasing the fatigue life
cycle of gears (124 and 126), and removing the inertia force on gear (126)
from drive gear (124)." Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires the intermediate gear to be in
constant engagement with the emergency drive, via the drive wheel, and
that, in Somerville, intermediate gears 126, 128 and main motor 120 are "not
in engagement via gear 124, seeing as gear 124 is not in engagement with
motor 120 when clutch 122 is disengaged." Appeal Br. 13. Alternatively,
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification "would not be
... an intermediate gear which is both (1) in constant engagement with an
emergency drive, via a drive wheel, independent of a current position of the
intermediate gear and (2) shiftably mounted for coupling in and out in a
direction of its shaft axis," because the Examiner's proposed modification
4
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
involves "removing gear 126 ... from contact with gear 124," such that
"gear 126 would not be in constant engagement with main motor 120."
Reply Br. 10.
Claim 1, as set forth supra, requires "at least one emergency drive
driving the drum shaft ... [and] comprising a drive wheel," and "at least one
intermediate gear ... in constant engagement with the emergency drive, via
the drive wheel, independent of a current position of the intermediate gear."
As written, the emergency drive comprises, or includes a drive wheel. As
set forth supra, the Examiner finds that Somerville's main motor 120 drives
the drum shaft and comprises gear 124. Figure 3 of Somerville is
reproduced below.
713
r\
121
120
112A
)
16
------- l 124
122
10
l
i
-~-1
Fig 3
Somerville's Figure 3 depicts compensating motor 112 having an output
shaft 112A connected to drum 10, reduction gear system 124, 126, 128, 16,
and main motor 120 comprising clutch 122 and drivingly connectable to
gear 124. See, e.g., Somerville 5:1-22. As depicted in Somerville's Figure
5
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
3, regardless of whether Somerville's clutch is disengages main motor 120
from gear 124, gear 126 is in constant engagement with the emergency
drive, via the drive wheel, because gear 126 is in constant engagement with
gear 124, of which the emergency drive is comprised.
Notwithstanding, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's proposed modification fails to result in the claimed subject
matter. The Examiner fails to explain how the Examiner's proposed
modification results in at least one intermediate gear (i.e., gear 126, 128)
being both in constant contact with the emergency drive (i.e., main motor
120), via the drive wheel (i.e., gear 124), and being shiftably mounted. For
example, Cundy discloses shifting gear B 1 in and out of contact with a
second gear (i.e., D 1, D2), but does not disclose that gear B 1 maintains
contact with a third gear during such shifting.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 3-7, 9, 10, and 19 depending therefrom.
Independent claim 11 and claims 12-14, 18, and 21
Regarding independent claim 11, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Somerville discloses an emergency drive (i.e., main motor 120) coupleable
to a driven wheel of the drum shaft of a winch drum (i.e., gear 16 of shaft
112A of drum 10), and also at least one intermediate gear (i.e., gears 126,
128), as claimed. Final Act. 5---6; see, e.g., Somerville, Fig. 3. The
Examiner determines that Somerville does not disclose that the intermediate
gear (i.e., gears 126, 128) are shiftably mounted for coupling in and out in a
direction of its shaft axis, or that the intermediate gear is shifted along its
shaft axis via actuation of a lever mechanism until it engages in the driven
6
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
wheel, as claimed. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies on Cundy for disclosing
that
[i]ntermediate gear (Bl) [is] shiftably mounted for coupling in
and out in a direction of its shaft axis; wherein, when the
emergency drive (4) drives the drum shaft (A), the intermediate
gear (B 1) is shifted along its shaft axis via actuation of a lever
mechanism (22) until it engages in the driven wheel (D2).
Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to have
provided Murray with the shiftable coupling in and out gear, as taught by[]
Cundy, for the purpose of saving energy of the emergency drive when not in
use and increasing the gear's fatigue life cycle." Id.
Appellants repeat their arguments as applied to independent claim 1,
supra. Appeal Br. 20-21 ("the evidence of record supports a conclusion that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine
Murray and Cundy in the proposed manner").
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although the Examiner
has provided support from Cundy for modifying Somerville's gear 126 to be
shifted along its shaft axis via an actuation lever mechanism into and out of
contact with gear 124, the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for
concluding that such shifting results in gear 126 engaging gear 16.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 11, and claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 21 depending
therefrom.
Rejections II-IV
The Examiner's reliance on Morse, Weinberg, and/or Macrander fails
to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 11, as set forth supra. Therefore, for essentially the reasons set forth
7
Appeal 2016-007508
Application 13/809,404
supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 8, 15, and
20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-16, and 18-21 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8