Ex Parte Gady et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2007

10666712 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD E. GADY and STEPHEN A. FEDERIGHE
____________

Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 21, 2007
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal involves claims 15 to 35, the only claims pending in this
application. Claims 1 to 14 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

2
The claims are directed to a transfer case assembly. Claims 15 and 26
are illustrative:
15. A transfer case assembly comprising:

an input shaft adapted to be coupled to a power source;

a first axle output shaft driven by said input shaft;

a second axle output shaft selectively driven by said input
shaft;

a clutch mechanism for coupling said second axle output shaft
to said first axle output shaft; and

a controller for controlling activation of said clutch mechanism
wherein said controller compares rotational speeds of said first and
second axle output shafts to each other, generates a control signal to
bring said rotational speeds of said first and second axle output shafts
within a common rotational speed range if rotational speeds of said
first and second axle output shafts differ from each other by a
predetermined amount, and activates said clutch mechanism to couple
said first and second axle output shafts together during a wheel
slippage condition when rotational speeds of said first and second axle
output shafts are within said common rotational speed range.

26. A method for coupling a transfer case to a drive axle during
wheel slippage comprising the steps of:

(a) providing an input shaft adapted to be coupled to a
power source, a first axle output shaft driven by the input shaft, a
second axle output shaft selectively driven by the input shaft, and a
clutch mechanism for coupling the second axle output shaft to the first
axle output shaft;

(b) comparing rotational speeds of the first and second axle
output shafts to each other;
(c) generating a control signal to bring the rotational speeds
of the first and second axle output shafts within a common rotational
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

3
speed range if the rotational speeds of the first and second axle output
shafts are different from each other by a predetermined amount; and

(d) activating the clutch mechanism to couple the first and
second axle output shafts together during a wheel slippage condition
once the rotational speeds of the first and second axle output shafts are
within the common rotational speed range.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Yasuda 6,115,663 Sep. 5, 2000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 15 to 23 and 25 to 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Yasuda.
3. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over.
Yasuda.
The Examiner contends that the Appellants’ disclosure does not
disclose a transfer case wherein the second axle output shaft is only coupled
to the first axle during a wheel slippage condition.
The Appellants contend that their Specification discloses that the
coupling of the second axle output shaft to the first axle output shaft occurs
only during a wheel slippage condition.
The Examiner contends that Yasuda discloses each and every element
of claims 15 to 23 and 25 to 35.
The Appellants contend that Yasuda does not disclose a controller that
compares the rotational speeds of the first and second axle output shafts to
each other and generates a control signal to bring the rotational speeds of the
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

4
first and second axle output shafts within a common rotational speed range if
the rotational speeds of the first and second axle output shafts differ from
each other by a predetermined amount. The Appellants further contend that
Yasuda does not disclose that the controller activates the clutch mechanism
to couple the first and second axle output shafts during wheel slippage when
the rotational speeds are within the common rotational speed range.

ISSUES
The first issue in the case is whether the Appellants have shown that
the Examiner erred in determining that Appellants’ Specification does not
disclose coupling the first and second axle output shafts together only during
a wheel slippage condition.
The second issue is whether Yasuda discloses a controller that first
determines whether there is wheel slippage and if there is wheel slippage,
generates a control signal to bring the rotational speeds of a first axle output
shaft and a second axle output shaft within a common rotational speed range
and engages the second axle output shaft when the rotational speeds are
within the common rotational speed range.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented an automatic axle traction control system. The
specification teaches that in prior art devices, automatic controlled
engagement and disengagement of the front axle is initiated independent of
ground conditions. Therefore, the engagement of the front axle may be
poorly timed to maintain the vehicle tractive effort and may lead to
unnecessary engagement of the front axle resulting in additional wear of the
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

5
components. Further, poorly timed engagement of the front axle can
damage the transfer case and axle components resulting in vehicle downtime
and increased costs for replacement of components (Specification 1).
Therefore, the Appellants’ invention takes into consideration both the
relative rotational speeds of the front and rear axle output shafts and the
ground conditions (Specification 1). In this regard, the Appellants’ system
includes a controller that first determines whether there is wheel slippage
and then determines whether the rotational speeds of the front axle output
shaft 54 and rear axle output shaft 52 are within a predetermined speed range
and only then engages the front wheel axle shaft 54. If the rotational speeds
of the front axle output shaft 54 and rear axle shaft 52 are not within the
predetermined speed range, the controller controls the engine output torque
or the wheel brake torque to bring the front axle output shaft 54 and the rear
axle output shaft 52 within the predetermined speed range. Once the front
axle output shaft 54 and the rear axle output shaft 52 are within the
predetermined speed range, the controller engages the front axle output shaft
54 (Specification 7).
When there is no longer wheel slippage, the transfer case declutch
mechanism disengages the front axle shaft (Specification 6). Appellants
recognize that it may be difficult to determine when ground conditions have
improved sufficiently but suggest various measures to solve this potential
problem i.e., the transfer case could include a spring disengagement
mechanism or a time delay device (Specification 6-7). In any case, once it is
determined that there is no wheel slippage, by whatever method, the front
axle shaft is disengaged.
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

6
Yasuda discloses a device to engage a front wheel shaft when wheel
slippage is determined (Yasuda, col. 3, lines 6-10). Wheel slippage is
determined by calculating a slippage ratio S using the equation: S=(VTFR+
VTFL-VTRR–VTRL)/2, where VTFR is the front right wheel speed, VTFL
is the front left wheel speed, VTRR is the rear right wheel speed and VTRL
is the rear right wheel speed (Yasuda, col. 3, ll. 56-64). If the slippage ratio
S is above a threshold value, STH, it is determined that there is wheel
slippage, and the front axle is engaged (Yasuda, col. 3, ll. 28-33; col. 4, ll.
19-27).
Yasuda does not include a controller that first determines whether
there is wheel slippage and if there is wheel slippage, generates a control
signal to bring the rotational speeds of a first axle output shaft and a second
axle output shaft within a common rotational speed range and engages the
second axle output shaft when the rotational speeds are within the common
rotational speed range.

ANALYSIS
In regard to issue one, it is our determination that Appellants’
Specification discloses that the front axle is engaged only during wheel
slippage. While it is true that Appellants’ Specification discloses that it may
be difficult to determine when wheel slippage ends, the Specification
nonetheless discloses that once it is determined, by whatever method, that
there is no wheel slippage, the front axle is disengaged. As such, in our
view, the subject matter recited in claims 34 and 35 is disclosed in the
Specification in a manner which complies with the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
Appeal 2006-1399
Application 10/666,712

7
In regard to the second issue, the subject matter of independent claims
15 and 26 is not disclosed in Yasuda because Yasuda does not disclose the
controller and its functions as recited in claim 15, or the generating step
recited in claim 26. Claims 16 to 23, 25, and 35 depend from claim 15 and
claims 27 to 34 depend from claim 26 and thus include the subject matter of
independent claims 15 and 26 respectively.
Further, the subject matter of claim 24, which is dependent on claim
15, is not suggested by Yasuda because Yasuda does not suggest the
controller and its functions as recited in claim 15.

CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 to 23 and 25 to 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not
sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

hh

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009