Ex Parte Gunther

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2014

11995056 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WOLFGANG GUNTHER
____________________

Appeal 2012-003235
Application 11/995,056
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003235
Application 11/995,056

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 8-
11 and 13-17. Claims 1-7 and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a wheel. Independent claim 8 is
reproduced below:
8. A wheel having a circular profile with an outer diameter,
the wheel comprising:
a wheel body including first and second oppositely
disposed support members, said wheel body having a rotational
axis; and
a plurality of rolling elements coupled to said wheel body
and extending between said first and second support members,
each said rolling element comprising an elliptical carrier body
and a smooth, homogenous polymeric coating on said elliptical
carrier body, said polymeric coating having a constant thickness
along a lengthwise direction of said elliptical carrier body;
each said rolling element having a rolling axis inclined
obliquely to said rotational axis of said wheel body and having
an outer rolling surface with an arcuate profile in a section
plane through and aligned with said rolling axis, said arcuate
profile defined by a maximum radius;
wherein a ratio of the outer diameter of the wheel to said
maximum radius is approximately 1.08 to approximately 1.13.

PRIOR ART
Ilon
Back
Harris
US 3,876,255
US 6,592,189 B1
US 6,796,618 B2
Apr. 8, 1975
Jul. 15, 2003
Sep. 28, 2004
Appeal 2012-003235
Application 11/995,056

3
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 8-11 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ilon, Back, and Harris.

OPINION
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Harris teaches:
the design of the rolling element’s arcuate profile is typically
based upon a number of factors, such as the number of rolling
elements, diameter of the wheel, the rolling element center
diameter, the rolling element’s angle of inclination with respect
to the wheel, material used for the outer rolling surface of the
rolling element and its ratio of deflection, and load capacity of
the rolling elements so that the wheel contacts the ground in a
continuous fashion.
Ans. 6 (citing Harris, col. 3, ll. 11-22; col. 5, ll. 6-13). Based on this finding,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the
wheel of Ilon “so that the ratio of the wheel’s outer diameter to the
maximum radius of the arcuate profile is approximately 1.107 to ensure that
there is adequate clearance for the rolling elements while providing the
wheel with desired stability and smooth motion.” Ans. 6-7.
While Appellant notes that Harris “discloses various characteristics of
omni-directional wheels that persons skilled in the art may consider” (App.
Br. 7), Appellant argues that “nothing in Harris . . . teaches or suggests an
omni-directional wheel wherein the ratio of the outer diameter of the wheel
to the maximum radius of the arcuate profile of the outer rolling surface of
the rolling element is approximately 1.08 to approximately 1.13.” App. Br.
8.
We agree. The Examiner does not identify nor do we discern where
Harris describes the claimed ratio between the outer diameter of the wheel
Appeal 2012-003235
Application 11/995,056

4
and the maximum radius of the arcuate profile of the outer rolling surface of
the rolling element. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a
factual basis. In making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial duty
of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that
the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 8, and claims 9-11 and 13-17 which depend therefrom.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-11 and 13-17 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh