Ex Parte Green et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2017

13467445 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 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.
13/467,445 05/09/2012 Shawn M. Green 22621 (500-2019) 8955
38790 7590 12/18/2017
THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
EXAMINER
PRATHER, GREGORY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
Docket @ splglaw.com
ccarroll @ splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN M. GREEN, DUWAYNE R. COOKMAN,
and JAMES H. POSPISIL
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,4451
Technology Center 3600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 21—35. The rejections of claims 5, 24, 31, 33, and 34
have been withdrawn. Ans. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works
Inc., See Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to gear teeth on a first surface and
gear teeth on a second surface configured to concurrently engage teeth of a
pinion. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A gear assembly comprising:
a single piece gear body having a first axis of rotation, the gear
body including opposing first and second surfaces each having
gear teeth formed therein, the gear teeth radially extending
outward from the first axis of rotation, the gear teeth on the first
surface also extending from the first surface toward the second
surface, the gear teeth on the second surface also extending
from the second surface toward the first surface, wherein the
gear teeth on the first surface are configured to engage a first set
of gear teeth of a pinion while the gear teeth on the second
surface do not engage the first set of the gear teeth of the pinion
and the gear teeth on the second surface are configured to
concurrently engage different, second teeth of the pinion while
the gear teeth on the first surface do not engage the second set
of the gear teeth of the pinion such that rotation of the pinion is
converted to rotation of the gear body around the first axis of
rotation.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Froio
Stritzel
US 3,700,078
US 4,926,712
Oct. 24, 1972
May 22, 1990
2
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—2, 4, 21—23, 25—27, 29-30, and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Stritzel.
Claims 28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stritzel in view of Froio.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 1—4, 21, 22, 23, 25—28, 31, 32, 34, and 35
Appellants argue that Stritzel does not disclose the limitation of:
the gear body including opposing first and second surfaces each
having gear teeth formed therein, the gear teeth radially
extending outward from the first axis of rotation, the gear teeth
on the first surface also extending from the first surface toward
the second surface, the gear teeth on the second surface also
extending from the second surface toward the first surface,
as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 12—18). Appellants in particular argue
that Stritzel does not describe gear body having opposing surfaces with gear
teeth formed therein (see App. Br. 15). More particularly, Appellants argue
the identified surfaces do not include gear teeth formed in the surfaces. Id.
The identified surfaces, according to Appellants, appear to be perfectly
3
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
parallel to each other. Id. That is, the identified surfaces of the spur gear
portions 24 appear to be flat surfaces that do not include any protrusions or
recesses. Id. If the identified surfaces of the spur gear portions 24 are flat,
then these surfaces cannot have gear teeth formed in the surfaces. Id.
Appellants assert that Gear teeth are formed by protrusions out of surfaces
and/or recesses extending into surfaces. Id.
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’
argument appears to hinge on the teeth extending only radially and not
axially (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the teeth are three
dimensional and extend both radially as well as axially (Ans. 8). The
Examiner points to the flat surfaces of opposing gear 24 as meeting the
claim limitations of first and second surfaces and the radial extensions of the
teeth from those surfaces as “the gear teeth on the first surface also
extending from the first surface toward the second surface, the gear teeth on
the second surface also extending from the second surface toward the first
surface” as recited in claim 1 (see radial arrows and annotations of annotated
Figure 1 reproduced below).
4
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
fWH& f mmR.ART
Annotated Figure 1 indicates with axial arrows the teeth extending
from the first surface toward the second surface and the teeth extending from
the second surface to the first surface (see Ans. 9).
Appellants further argue that Stritzel does not disclose the gear with
gear teeth on the first surface are configured to engage a first set of gear
teeth of a pinion while the gear teeth on the second surface are configured to
concurrently engage different, second teeth of the same pinion (App. Br. 18—
19).
We do not agree. The Examiner identifies as pinion the neighboring
set of gears 24 that engage the first and different second set of gear teeth of
the first and second surfaces (see Ans. 9-10 and reproduced below annotated
5
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
Fig. 1 indicating the pinion having first and second teeth engaging first and
second surface teeth of the gear respectively).
Annotated Figure 1 indicates the first and second gear teeth of the
pinion engaging the first and second surfaces and the gear teeth respectively
(see Ans. 10). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants repeat similar arguments for claim 21, (App. Br. 19-20), thus, for
the same reasons we also affirm these claims and their dependent claims 2—
4, 22, 23, 25—28, 32, and 35 (App. Br. 30) not argued separately.
Claims 29 and 3 0
Appellants argue that because Stritzel teaches an integral/single gear
body including transfer gears 24 and middle hourglass worm wheel portion
22, the body does not have two different elements that include different first
6
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
and second opposing surfaces as recited in claims 29 and 30 (App. Br, 26—
27).
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that the gear in Stritzel
can be viewed as being two members integral with each other, with a first
member having the first surface and gear teeth on the first surface and one
half of the worm gear teeth, and a second member having the second surface
and gear teeth on the second surface and another half of the worm gear teeth.
Ans. 11.
“Integral” is not limited to a one-piece construction. Warmister
Fiberglass Co., Inc. v. Delta Fiberglass Structures, Inc., 22 F.3d 1104,
1107 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (unpublished). “It is apparent that ‘integral’ must
mean something different than ‘one-piece’ and includes both homogeneous
and separate but joined elements. . . . [T]he broadest reasonable
interpretation of ‘integral’ includes components which ‘may be separate
initially but are later joined to form a complete device.” In re Miskinyar,
6 F.3d 787, 2 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (unpublished). The meaning of “integral” is
“sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as
fastening and welding.” In re Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647 (CCPA 1973).
The term “integral” is not limited to a fabrication of the parts from a
single piece of metal, but is inclusive of other means for maintaining the
parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967
(CCPA 1965).
In particular, appellants argue that the phrase ‘integrally formed as
a portion of’ requires the compliance area to be ‘fused together’
with the housing ‘to form a single part-such as by casting them as a
molded article, machining a single piece of material to form them,
welding them together, or otherwise joining them in a firm and
substantially permanent manner.’.... We conclude that the PTO's
interpretation is reasonable in light of all the evidence before the
7
Appeal 2016-008441
Application 13/467,445
Board. As the cases cited above demonstrate, our predecessor court
had on several prior occasions interpreted the term ‘integral’ to
cover more than a unitary construction. . . . This court has also
endorsed that interpretation.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner notes, and we agree, that Appellants’ own
Specification states that “parts can be joined by press-fitting, welding,
adhesive, fasteners or the like” (para. 10), which would be similar to
multiple “members” fused together to produce a single gear body (see
Ans. 11).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the gear 24 and middle
hourglass worm wheel portion 22 reads on a single gear body having
separate first and second surfaces.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29
and 30.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—2, 4, 21, 22, 23, 25—28, 29, 30,
and 35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8