Ex Parte Cornay et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 2010

11566957 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL J. CORNAY, RICHARD J. CASON,
and PEDRO J. NARVAEZ
____________

Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: May 20, 2010
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and STEVEN D.A.
MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul J. Cornay et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 63-65, which are all of the
claims on appeal. The Examiner has allowed the remaining pending claims
57-62. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is a centering mechanism for a
universal joint. Spec. 1:23-24. Claim 63, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
63. A universal joint comprising:
(a) first and second shafts;
(b) coupling means for transmitting torque from the first
shaft to the second shaft;
(c) centering means interconnecting the first shaft and the
second shaft for causing the second shaft to move at the same
angle relative to the coupling means as does the first shaft, the
centering means comprising a first connection rod and a second
connection rod connected to the first connection rod by a
plurality of bent rods.
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 63-65
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Piatti (Italian Publication
602908, published March 24, 1960).
ANALYSIS
Claim 63
The Examiner’s determination of anticipation is based in part on the
finding that that Piatti’s bundles 11, 411 of metallic wires correspond to the
claimed “bent rods.” This finding is based on the Examiner’s interpretation
Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957

3
of the claimed “bent rods” as including slender, curved bars made of metal.
Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that the bent rods of the claimed invention remove
the need for Piatti’s screw 428 and bushing 427 to prevent axial shifting,1
and thus Piatti’s bundles 11, 411 of metallic wires “are not ‘bent rods’ as
claimed.” Br. 3.
The issue before us is:
Are Piatti’s bundles 11, 411 of metallic wires “bent rods” as called for
in claim 63?
Claim 63 is directed to a universal joint that includes a plurality of
bent rods connecting the first and second connection rods. Appellants’
Specification does not provide a lexicographical definition of “bent rods.”
Spec. passim. We do not find language in the claim that further limits or
describes the “bent rods,” or anything in Appellants’ Specification
inconsistent with the Examiner’s definition of “bent rods” as meaning
slender, curved bars.2 Given this, we conclude the Examiner’s interpretation
of “bent rods” as slender, curved bars is reasonable.
Claim 63 uses the transitional phrase “comprising,” so that claim 63 is
open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the

1 Appellants’ reference to “the means of Figures 13-15 of Piatti to prevent
axial shifting” (Br. 3) refers to screw 428 and bushing 427 (Piatti 12:20 –
13:1; figs. 13-15).
2 The word “bent” is commonly understood to mean “curved,” and the word
“rod” is commonly understood to mean “a slender bar resembling a wand of
wood.” The American Heritage Dictionary (2d College ed. 1982) (“bent,”
adjective, definition 1c) (“rod,” noun, definition 1b).
Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957

4
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim.” (citation omitted)). Further,
we cannot find, and Appellants have failed to identify, any language in claim
63 prohibiting additional elements such as Piatti’s screw 428 and bushing
427. It is Appellants’ burden to “precisely define the invention.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The presence in the Piatti
device of screw 428 and bushing 427 thus is not germane to the Examiner’s
finding that bundles 11, 411 meet the claim limitation calling for a plurality
of bent rods.
The Examiner found, and we agree, that Piatti discloses bundles 11,
411 of metallic wires that connect a first and second connection rod (forks
1b, 401c and 2b, 402c of driving element 1a, 401a and driven element 2a,
402a, respectively). Ans. 3; Piatti 6:20 – 7:5; figs. 1, 2 and Piatti 12:10-23;
figs. 13-15. Appellants provide no persuasive explanation of how Piatti’s
bundles 11, 411 of metallic wires differ structurally from the claimed bent
rods. We conclude Piatti’s curved bundles of metal wires 11, 411 are “bent
rods” as called for in claim 63.
Claim 64
Appellants contend that Piatti’s bundle 11 of metallic wires does not
correspond to the claimed bent rods because the bundle 11 of metallic wires
“are curved and thus do not have longitudinal axes as specified in claim 64.”
Br. 3.
The issue before us is:
Does claim 64 contain a limitation prohibiting the bent rods from
having a curved longitudinal axis?
Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957

5
Claim 64 depends from independent claim 63, and further
recites:
wherein the first connection rod and the second connection rod
are connected at equal angles, and the axes of rotation of the
first connection rod, bent rods and second connection rod
intersect at the pivot points of the first and second shafts and
the bisecting plane of the universal joint which is perpendicular
to the rotation axes of the coupling means.
Claim 64 contains a limitation related to axes of rotation of the first
and second connection rods and the bent rods, but does not prohibit the bent
rods from being curved. Thus, Appellants’ contention is not commensurate
with the claim language and is unpersuasive. As the Examiner correctly
points out, the longitudinal axis of a body is not necessarily synonymous
with the axis of rotation of that body. Ans. 4. Claim 64 does not contain a
limitation prohibiting the bent rods from being curved.
Claim 65
Claim 65 depends from independent claim 63, and further recites:
a tube supporting the first connection rod and the second
connection rod, and whereby the first connection rod, the
second connection rod, and the tube support and interconnect
the first shaft and the second shaft for causing the second shaft
to move at the same angle relative the coupling means as does
the first shaft.
The Examiner’s determination that claim 65 is anticipated by Piatti is
based in part on the finding that Piatti discloses bent rods (bundle of metal
wires 411) and a tube (tube 427) supporting the first and second connecting
rods (401c and 402c). Ans. 3-4.
Appeal 2009-006318
Application 11/566,957

6
Appellants contend that, “Piatti does not have the bent rods as claimed
in claim 63 in combination with a tube as claimed in claim 65, and thus does
not anticipate claim 65.” Br. 3.
The issue before us is:
Does Piatti disclose the bent rods and tube of claim 65?
As we found supra in our analysis of claim 63, Piatti’s bundle 411 of
metallic wires anticipates the claimed “bent rods.” Piatti discloses an
embodiment that includes a spigot joint 403 having an axial orifice 403c
equipped with a longitudinally cut metal bushing 427 through which bundle
of metal wires 411 passes. Piatti 12:16-19, 22-23; figs. 13-15. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Piatti discloses a longitudinally cut metal
bushing 427, corresponding to the claimed tube. Appellants provide no
persuasive explanation of how Piatti’s metal wires 411 and tube 427 differ
structurally from the claimed bent rods and tube. As such, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Piatti discloses the bent rods and tube of claim 65.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 63-65.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nhl

GARVEY SMITH NEHRBASS & NORTH LLC
LAKEWAY 3 SUITE 3290
3838 NORTH CAUSEWAY BLVD
METAIRIE LA 70002