Ex Parte Cornay et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 20, 201011566957 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation