Ex Parte Haenbeukers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

11726792 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/726,792 03/23/2007 Casper Haenbeukers T07-017A 9082
26683 7590 09/25/2013
THE GATES CORPORATION
IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3
1551 WEWATTA STREET
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
AUNG, SAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CASPER HAENBEUKERS and MICHAEL KAMM
____________________

Appeal 2011-011742
Application 11/726,792
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JILL D. HILL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011742
Application 11/726,792

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Dinca (US 6,165,091; iss. Dec. 26, 2000). Claims 2 and 3 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A tensioner comprising:
a shaft (10) having a shaft portion (12) engagable with a
mounting surface;
a pivot arm (50) pivotally engaged with the shaft about
an axis AA;
a plate (70) fixedly attached to the shaft, the plate
disposed on an end of the shaft opposite the shaft portion, the
plate comprising a stop (71) for limiting a pivot arm pivot
range;
a torsion spring (60) engaged between the pivot arm and
the plate for biasing the pivot arm, the torsion spring disposed
opposite the shaft portion and immediately adjacent the plate;
a pulley (40) journalled to the pivot arm, the center of
rotation of the pivot arm (A-A) disposed eccentrically from the
center of rotation (B-B) of the plate;
the pivot arm having a tab (55) which cooperates with a
portion (74) on the plate to indicate a relative position of the
pivot arm with respect to the plate during installation, the tab
does not contact the plate, the pivot arm comprising first and
second protrusions (52,53) for cooperatively engaging the stop;
and a tool receiving portion (75) on the plate for rotationally
adjusting the plate during installation.

Appeal 2011-011742
Application 11/726,792

3
OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1 and 4-6 as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative. Claims 4-6 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Dinca discloses each of the features recited in
claim 1. Ans. 3-4. Specifically, the Examiner explains that the cylindrical
tubular portion (58) of the valve assembly (24) in Dinca discloses the
claimed shaft and that the portion of the cylindrical tubular portion (58)
above the upper annular groove (101) forms the claimed shaft portion and is
engageable with a mounting surface formed by the inner circumference of
the closure portion (44) via the journal bearing (112) and O-ring (108). Ans.
3.
Appellants argue that the inner circumference of the closure portion
(44) cannot properly be considered the claimed mounting surface because it
is internal to the tensioner assembly. App. Br. 6. Appellants explain that
while it would be reasonable to conclude that the shaft portion (12) in
Appellants’ Figure 1 would be used to attach the tensioner to an external
mounting surface such as a vehicle engine, it would not be reasonable to
consider the inner circumference of the closure portion (44) in Dinca to be a
mounting surface because “using the surface in member 44 would not allow
one to install the device on a mounting surface as claimed.” App. Br. 7.
Appellants contend that the broadest reasonable interpretation requires the
phrase “mounting surface” to be construed as some unspecified external
surface such as, but not limited to, a vehicle engine, but do not offer any
specific ordinary and customary meaning for “mounting surface.” App. Br.
7, Reply Br. 2-4.
Appeal 2011-011742
Application 11/726,792

4
Initially, we note that the claim does not specify anything about the
mounting surface. In fact, the mounting surface is not even positively
recited in the claim. As the Examiner correctly notes, the claim simply
requires that the shaft portion be capable of engaging a mounting surface,
somewhere. See Ans. 10. The claim does not require that the mounting
surface be any specific structure or at any specific location.
Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and consistent with the interpretation those
skilled in the art would reach. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants contend that the Specification and
Dinca each make clear that the meaning of “mounting surface” requires
some surface external to the closure portion (44) in Dinca. App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 2-4.
With regard to Appellants’ argument that the Specification in some
way defines the phrase “mounting surface,” we disagree. The Specification
simply explains that “[p]ortion 12 engages a mounting surface (not shown)”
and “[f]astener 80 is used to secure the tensioner to a mounting surface such
as a vehicle engine.” Spec., p. 4, ll. 9-10 and p. 5, ll. 10-11. This is a single
example of the mounting surface including a vehicle engine and does not
impart a special meaning to the phrase “mounting surface.” See In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (an inventor must define
specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in
order to be his own lexicographer, as opposed to merely describing “in a
general fashion certain features”). Appellants even acknowledge this fact,
noting that “had Applicant claimed mounting the tensioner to a vehicle
Appeal 2011-011742
Application 11/726,792

5
engine then this would unnecessarily restrict claim coverage to a vehicle
engine mounted tensioner.” Reply Br. 4.
With regard to Appellants’ statement that Dinca supports some special
(but unspecified) meaning of “mounting surface” in the art, the discussion in
Dinca relied on by Appellants is also simply a use of the phrase in a single
example. See Reply Br. 4 (citing Dinca, col. 8, ll. 37-42).
Appellants have failed to persuade us that considering the inner
circumference of the closure portion (44) in Dinca as a “mounting surface”
is inconsistent with the Appellants’ Specification or with the interpretation
one skilled in the art would reach. Appellants do not provide any further
arguments attacking the Examiner’s findings. See App. Br. 4-9 and Reply
Br. 2-4. Thus, we are not apprised of error and we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 4-6.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4-6.
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

rvb