Ex Parte DeHart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2017

13289275 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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.
13/289,275 11/04/2011 John K. DeHart PA76IP0023USA 6068
49458 7590
DON W. BULSON (PARK)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE / 19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
MCGOVERN, BRIAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2017 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):
ipdocket @ rennerotto. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN K. DeHART
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—9 and 13—19, all pending claims of the application.1 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Claims 10-12 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 36.
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the application relates to a rotational lock
assembly to prevent unwanted movement of a missile fin by locking the fin
in a selected position. Spec. 1:30—2:4.2 More specifically, the lock
assembly includes a retention mechanism configured to engage a lock plate
to prevent rotation of the lock plate and to disengage from the lock plate to
allow rotation of the lock plate. Spec. 2:8—13.
Independent claims 1,15, and 18 are exemplary and are reproduced
below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A rotational lock assembly for a control surface,
including:
an output shaft;
an output gear rotatable about the output shaft and a lock
plate keyed to the output shaft, the lock plate being axially
movable along the output shaft between a first axial position and
a second axial position; and
a retention mechanism configured to engage the lock plate
when the lock plate is in the first axial position of the lock plate
to prevent rotation of the lock plate and configured to disengage
from the lock plate when the lock plate is in the second axial
position to allow rotation of the lock plate;
wherein the output gear includes one or more locking
members axially alignable with corresponding locking members
on the lock plate by rotation of the output gear relative to the lock
plate from a first relative rotational position to a second relative
rotational position, the one or more locking members and the
corresponding locking members when not aligned being
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed November 4,
2011 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed September
18, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 17, 2016; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 7, 2016; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 7, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
configured to hold the lock plate in the first axial position, and
the one or more locking members and the corresponding locking
members when aligned permitting axial movement of the lock
plate toward the output gear to the second axial position and
engagement of the one or more locking members of the output
gear and the corresponding locking members of the lock plate to
couple the lock plate and output gear for common rotation,
whereby rotation of the output gear will effect a corresponding
rotation of the output shaft.
15. A rotational lock system for a control surface
including:
a motor;
an output shaft configured to be coupled to a control
surface;
an output gear coupled to the motor by a gear train, the
output gear being rotatable about the output shaft;
a lock plate keyed to the output shaft and axially movable
along the output shaft; and
a retention mechanism configured to engage the lock plate
in a first axial position to prevent rotation of the lock plate;
wherein in a first movement state of the motor, actuation
of the motor causes the output gear to move from a first rotational
position to a second rotational position so that one or more
locking members on the output gear align with corresponding
locking members on the lock plate, the lock plate, when in the
second rotational position, being axially movable under a biasing
force toward the output gear to a second axial position to
disengage the lock plate from the retention mechanism and to
couple the lock plate and output gear for common rotation; and
wherein in a second movement state of the motor,
actuation of the motor causes the output shaft to rotate whereby
the control surface can be moved to a desired position.
3
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
18. A method of unlocking a control surface that is
locked by a rotational lock assembly, the rotational lock
assembly including an output gear and a lock plate, the output
gear having a plurality of detents on a face of the output gear that
are engageable with a plurality of tabs on a face of the lock plate
in a locked position, and a retention mechanism that engages the
lock plate in the locked position, the method including:
rotating the output gear in a first direction so that a
mechanical zero tab on the face of the output gear contacts one
of the tabs',
rotating the output gear in a second direction to align a
plurality of bores extending at least partially through the output
gear with the plurality of tabs; and
shifting the lock plate axially toward the output gear until
the tabs are engaged with the bores to disengage the lock plate
from the retention mechanism for unlocking the control surface.
Appeal Br. 34, 36, 37.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS3
Claims 1—9 and 13, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bokovoy (US 3,743,067; July 3, 1973). Final
Act. 4-10.
Claims 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Bokovoy and Speicher et al. (US 5,950,963; Sept. 14,
1999)(“Speicher”). Final Act. 10-12.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
3 The Examiner indicates the rejection of claims 1—9 and 13—14 under
35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, is withdrawn. See Interview Summary mailed
December 14, 2015.
4
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
ISSUES
(1) Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue presented
on appeal for claim 1 is whether the Examiner errs in finding Bokovoy
discloses “a retention mechanism configured to engage the lock plate when
the lock plate is in the first axial position of the lock plate to prevent rotation
of the lock plate and configured to disengage from the lock plate when the
lock plate is in the second axial position to allow rotation of the lock plate,”
as recited in claim 1.
(2) The dispositive issue presented on appeal for claim 18 is
whether the Examiner errs in finding Bokovoy discloses “a mechanical zero
tab” and “shifting the lock plate axially toward the output gear,” as recited
in claim 18.
(3) The dispositive issue presented on appeal for claim 15 is
whether the Examiner errs in finding Bokovoy teaches or suggests “a
retention mechanism configured to engage the lock plate in a first axial
position to prevent rotation of the lock plate,” as recited in claim 15.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1 — claim 1
Appellant argues Bokovoy fails to disclose a “retention mechanism”
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14—15. Specifically, Appellant argues
Bokovoy’s “shift control cam member does not prevent rotation of anything.
Rather, its function is to shift the shift control member 24 in one direction or
the other depending on the direction of rotation of the driving pinion 6.”
Appeal Br. 14.
5
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. In response to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds:
Bokovoy explicitly discloses in column 4, lines 3—6: “cam teeth
24a and 28a, respectively, that axially displace the shift control
member 24 to the right only for one given direction of
rotation of the driving pinion” emphasis added). The
Examiner notes that if the interaction between element (24a)
and element (28a) only allows for rotation of element (24) in
one direction, then element (28a) must prevent rotation of
element (24) in the opposite direction, which is sufficient to
read on the breadth of the claim limitations.
Ans. 7.
We determine the Examiner has not demonstrated that Bokovoy
discloses that cam teeth 24a and 28a engage shift control member 24 to
prevent rotation of shift control member 24. The portion of Bokovoy cited
by the Examiner discloses:
[t]he adjacent faces of the shift control member 24 and the shift
control cam member 28 are provided with cooperating
direction-responsive cam teeth 24a and 28a, respectively, that
axially displace the shift control member 24 to the right only for
one given direction of rotation of the driving pinion.
Bokovoy 4:1—6; see also Ans. 7.
Rather than preventing rotation of shift control member 24, we find
the cited portion of Bokovoy discloses that cam teeth 24a and 28a “axially
displace the shift control member 24 to the right only for one given direction
of rotation of the driving pinion” and, inferentially, do not axially displace
the shift control member 24 to the right for a second direction of rotation.
Therefore the Examiner errs in finding Bokovoy discloses that cam teeth 24a
and 28a prevent shift control member 24 from rotating.
6
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
“Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their
limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580
F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, the Examiner
fails to demonstrate that Bokovoy discloses every limitation of claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner errs
in rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—9, 13, and 14 for
similar reasons.
Issue 2 — claim 18
The Examiner finds the combination of elements 10, 12, 16, 24, and
30 disclose a “lock plate,” as recited in claim 18. Final Act. 9—10.
Appellant argues “[a]s already discussed in connection with claim 1,
Bokovoy does not disclose an axially shiftable lock plate and hence there is
no disclosure of shifting a non-existent lock plate as set forth in claim 18.”
Appeal Br. 26. In connection with claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner-
cited combination of elements cannot be relied upon to disclose the claimed
lock plate because clutch member 12 is constrained against axial movement.
Appeal Br. 12—13.
We find the Examiner has the better position. First, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that:
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitations, such as the
lock plate being a one-piece, monolithic element, that would
preclude an interpretation of the combination of elements (12),
(16), (24), and (30) from reading on the breadth of the claimed
lock plate. . . . The claim only requires the lock plate to, in
some manner, including at least partially, have movement
7
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
between the first axial position and the second axial position.
Bokovoy discloses that element (16), which is interpreted as
part of the lock plate, is axial movable (see Bokovoy column 3,
lines 30-33) between the first axial position and the second
axial position and thus Bokovoy reads on the breadth of the
claim limitations.
Ans. 3^4.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that central driver member
16 is axially shiftable. Final Act. 5 (citing Bokovoy 3:30 and 4:42—51).
Accordingly, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that “Bokovoy
does not disclose an axially shiftable lock plate,” as recited in claim 18.
Appellant further argues “as discussed above in connection with claim
4, Bokovoy does not disclose a mechanical zero tab and thus there is no
disclosure of rotating an output gear in a first direction so that the
nonexistent mechanical zero tab contacts one of the tabs on the nonexistent
lock plate.” Appeal Br. 26.
In response, the Examiner states
Applicant has not provided any reason as to why element (20)
of Bokovoy cannot be interpreted as the mechanical zero tab,
and thus it is unclear why Applicant believes that element (20)
cannot be interpreted as the mechanical zero tab. There is
nothing in the claim that precludes element (20) from being
interpreted as the mechanical zero tab. In addition, the
mechanical zero tab (20) interferes with one of the tabs (16c) of
the locking plate through element (20a).
Ans. 12.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of error and we adopt as
our own the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to independent
claim 18. We, thus, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim
8
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
18 and of dependent claim 19, which is not argued separately. Appeal
Br. 25-32.
Issue 3 — claim 15
Appellant argues Bokovoy fails to teach or suggest “a retention
mechanism” as recited in claim 15. Appeal Br. 30. Specifically, Appellant
argues Bokovoy’s “shift control cam member does not prevent rotation of
anything. Rather, its function is to shift the shift control member 24 in one
direction or the other depending on the direction of rotation of the driving
pinion 6.” Id.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. As discussed in more
detail above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Bokovoy teaches or suggests that cam teeth 24a and 28a engage shift control
member 24 to prevent rotation of shift control member 24. Rather, we find
the Examiner-cited portion of Bokovoy discloses that cam teeth 24a and 28a
“axially displace the shift control member 24 to the right only for one given
direction of rotation of the driving pinion” and consequently suggest not
axially displacing the shift control member 24 to the right for a second
direction of rotation. We do not agree with the Examiner that Bokovoy
teaches or suggests that cam teeth 24a and 28a prevent shift control member
24 from rotating. Accordingly, because we are unable to ascertain the basis
in Bokovoy for the disputed findings discussed above, we are constrained by
the record to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
15 and of dependent claims 16 and 17, which stand with independent claim
15.
9
Appeal 2017-002719
Application 13/289,275
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
contentions.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 13, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
10