Ex Parte Cholewczynski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13315343 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/315,343 12/09/2011
24938 7590 08/31/2016
FCA US LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ludwik W. Cholewczynski
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.
708161US1 3367
EXAMINER
CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
chris.davenport@fcagroup.com
michelle.madak@fcagroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUDWIK W. CHOLEWCZYNSKI and
STAN M. MASHKEVICH
Appeal2014-009969
Application 13/315,343 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and KENNETH
G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present disclosure relates to a
compliant guide device and, particularly, to shaft-chain system that reduces
chain vibrations." Spec. i-f 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Chrysler Group LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009969
Application 13/315,343
CLAHvIS
Claims 1-17 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A compliant guide device for a belt or chain comprising:
a first contact section configured to provide compliant
contact with a slack side of the chain or belt, and a second contact
section configured to provide compliant contact with a tension
side of the chain or belt; and
a mounting section configured to be movably mountable
about a balance shaft utilized to mount a driven sprocket or
pulley, wherein the complaint guide device and the driven
sprocket or pulley share a common axis of rotation.
App. Br. 7.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-13, and 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nelson2 in view of Wigsten. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nelson in view of Wigsten and Markley. 4
DISCUSSION
Appellants group and discuss all claims together. See Appeal Br. 3---6.
We select claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nelson discloses a
device as claimed except that Nelson does not explicitly disclose that the
mounting section is movably mountable. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Nelson Figs.
9-10; col. 4, 11. 45---62). The Examiner relies on Wigsten as teaching a chain
2 Nelson et al., US 7,892,125 B2, iss. Feb. 22, 2011.
3 Wigsten et al., US 7,537,533 B2, iss. May 26, 2009.
4 Markley, US 7 ,097 ,579 B2, iss. Aug. 29, 2006.
2
Appeal2014-009969
Application 13/315,343
tensioning device with a movable mount to compensate for rapidly
fluctuating slack and tension modes and to balance the overall tension loads
on the closed loop chain system. Id. at 3 (citing Nelson Figs. 3-8; col. 3, 11.
47-57; col. 7, 11. 42-52). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to make Nelson's mounting section movable based on the reasons
provided for using a movable mount in Wigsten. Id.
For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by
Appellants' arguments.
First, Appellants argue that Wigsten teaches away from a movable
mount wherein the guide device and pulley share a common axis because
Wigsten discloses "a device mounted on a pivot mount 219 which secures
the bracket 212 to the engine housing. Furthermore, in Wigsten the axis of
rotation of the device is different than the axis of rotation of the driven
sprocket or pulley." Appeal Br. 4--5. A "reference may be said
to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). See also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing more than one
alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives if the
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
alternatives). We are not persuaded that Wigsten teaches away from the
claimed device. Specifically, Appellants point only to Wigsten's use of a
movable mount without a common axis as evidence of teaching away.
However, we are not persuaded that Wigsten's use of a movable mount
3
Appeal2014-009969
Application 13/315,343
without a common axis of rotation for the guide and pulley, without more,
would discourage one from using a common axis of rotation or would
necessarily lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from the path taken by
Appellants.
Appellants also assert that the combined device would not result in a
common axis of rotation for the drive gear and the guide device. Appeal Br.
5. However, we agree with the Examiner that the rejection only relies on
Wigsten's teachings regarding the benefits of a movable mount and
Appellants have not shown that applying these teachings would require
changing the location of any pivot in Nelson's parts, which already have a
common axis as claimed. See Ans. 2.
Appellants also assert that the claimed device eliminates the need to
mount the device to the engine block, which is allegedly a significant
structural difference over the art. See Appeal Br. 4--5. This assertion alone
does not show any error in the rejection because it is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim, which says nothing about whether the device is
mounted to an engine block.
Appellants also argue that the rejection is based on hindsight,
asserting:
The only teaching of Wigsten that would apply to the invention
would allow the device to be rotatable about a pivot point not
sharing an axis with the driven pulley or gear. . . . It is
respectfully submitted that this knowledge was not within the
level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was
made, and includes knowledge gleaned only from Appellant's
disclosure.
Appeal Br. 5. However, we agree with the Examiner that Nelson discloses a
guide device and pulley with the same axis of rotation. See Ans. 3. Thus,
4
Appeal2014-009969
Application 13/315,343
we disagree that the rejection relies on knowledge gleaned only from
Appellants' disclosure.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1, and thus, we sustain the rejection. Appellants do not raise any
separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2--4, 6-13, and
15-17 over Nelson and Wigsten or the rejection of claims 5 and 14 over
Nelson, Wigsten, and Markley. Thus, we sustain the rejections of those
claims for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims
1-17.
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
5