Ex Parte HahnDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201713080703 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/080,703 04/06/2011 Gregory W. Hahn PA15200US01; 60298-651 PUS 2340 26096 7590 09/28/2017 TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C EXAMINER 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 DAVIS, MARY ALICE BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY W. HAHN Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE GREGORY W. HAHN (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 12, which are the only claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A scroll compressor comprising: a first scroll member having a first base and a first spiral wrap extending from said first base; a second scroll member having a second base and a second spiral wrap extending from the second base, said first and second spiral wraps of said first and second scroll members interfitting to define compression chambers; an electric motor driving a shaft to cause said second scroll member to orbit relative to said first scroll member, and said shaft having an eccentric pin extending upwardly into a slider block, said slider block being provided with a slider block bore with a flat drive surface, and a curved surface at locations removed from said flat drive surface, said eccentric pin further being provided with a flat drive surface, with clearance provided between said slider block bore and an outer periphery of said eccentric pin such that said slider block can move relative to said eccentric pin; said slider block extending upwardly into a boss extending away from said second base, with movement of said slider block relative to said eccentric pin causing movement of said second scroll member relative to said first scroll member; a spring biasing said second spiral wrap toward said first spiral wrap, said spring being positioned between said eccentric pin and said bore of said slider block; a counterweight surrounding said slider block, and having a cylindrical ring surrounding said shaft, with an extending portion extending upwardly to be positioned radially outwardly of said boss, and wherein a center axis of said counterweight is not parallel to said flat drive surface, and such that said counterweight biasing said second spiral wrap away from said first spiral wrap; and wherein an angle is defined between said center axis and said flat drive surface, and said angle is between 5° and 20°. 2 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 REJECTION The only rejection before us on appeal is the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shigeoka (US 5,582,513, issued Dec. 10, 1996) and Arata (US 5,040,958, issued Aug. 20, 1991) set forth in the Final Action (dated May 27, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.”). See Final Act. 3—6, 9-10.1 DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Shigeoka discloses a scroll compressor substantially as recited in claim 1, with the exception that Shigeoka does not disclose the counterweight (counterweight 10) surrounding the slider block (drive bush 5) or an electric motor driving the shaft. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Arata, to provide Shigeoka’s counterweight with a cylindrical ring surrounding the shaft in order to better attach the counterweight to the slider block. Id. at 5. The Examiner also determines, in view of Arata, that it would have been obvious to provide an electric motor to drive the shaft of Shigeoka’s scroll compressor as a well-known means of rotating a shaft requiring only routine skill in the art. Id. at 5—6. The Examiner finds that Shigeoka discloses in Figure IB the angle range recited in claim 1 (between 5° and 20°) and the angle range recited in 1 The Examiner sets forth two positions with respect to the claimed angle range (Final Act. 6, 10). The second position is explained under a heading (Final Act. 9) which includes Sugimoto (US 2009/0246057 Al, published Oct. 1, 2009), in addition to Shigeoka and Arata, in the statement of the rejection. However, the Examiner does not, in fact, rely on Sugimoto in explaining the rejection. Accordingly, we understand the rejection to be based on Shigeoka and Arata only. 3 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 claim 12 (between 7.5° and 17.5°). Id. at 6. In the alternative, the Examiner finds that Shigeoka “teaches generating the proper angle (0) in order to accomplish the desired results,” and determines that it would have been obvious to provide angle 0 within the claimed range of between 5° and 20° as a matter of routine optimization. Final Act. 9—10. In the Appeal Brief (dated Sept. 22, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”), Appellant argues that Shigeoka discloses a system wherein balancing the forces is a desired goal and that “[t]o change the shape of the counterweight of Shigeoka . . ., as arguably taught by Arata . . ., might well destroy goals of Shigeoka . . ., and there is no proposed benefit that would justify the change.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant provides no evidence or specific technical reasoning that suggests that providing Shigeoka’s counterweight with a cylindrical ring surrounding the shaft to secure the counterweight to the slider block (drive bush 5) would interfere with, or undermine, the balancing of forces, or any other goal, of Shigeoka. Appellant’s argument is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Further, the Examiner does set forth a benefit of the proposed modification—namely, “the ability to tightly fit the counterweight to the slider block as a better attachment feature due to the increased surface area of attachment.” Final Act. 5. Appellant does not point out any error in the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard. Appellant purports to have “claimed an interface between an eccentric pin and a slider block, wherein there is a sole flat drive surface,” and argues that, in contrast, Shigeoka’s pin 9 “has parallel opposed flat drive surfaces.” Appeal Br. 3. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not limit the pin or slider block to having a sole flat drive surface. See Ans. 3 4 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 (pointing out that “the features upon which [AJppellant relies (i.e., a ‘sole flat drive surface’) is not recited in the rejected claim(s)”). Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “said slider block being provided with a slider block bore with a flat drive surface, and a curved surface at locations removed from said flat drive surface, said eccentric pin further being provided with a flat drive surface.” Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). Claim 1 does not exclude additional flat drive surfaces on either the slider block or the pin, nor does claim 1 specify that the surface is curved at all locations removed from the flat drive surface. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s determination that providing Shigeoka’s angle 0 within the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization (Final Act. 10) is deficient because, according to Appellant, there is no showing that Shigeoka’s angle 0 is a known result effective variable and “no teaching of the relationship between the center axis of a counterweight and the flat drive surface.” Appeal Br. 4. In the Reply Brief (dated March 21, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.”), Appellant contends that Shigeoka provides no “teaching as to how or why [angle 0] would be changed, nor how that angle impacts upon the overall operation of the scroll compressor.” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “[cjontrary to the Examiner’s assertion, all that appears to be changed is ‘specifically, spring coefficient [f] of the spring member 15.’” Id. The Examiner responds by pointing out, correctly, that Shigeoka’s angle 0 is an angle between the counterweight center axis and the flat drive surface. Ans. 3 (citing Shigeoka, Figs. IB, 2); see also Shigeoka 3:6, 12—13 (disclosing that counterweight 10 is mounted on drive bush 5, thereby setting the angle (0) between the counterweight center axis and the flat drive 5 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 surface (large width portion 71)). The Examiner finds that Shigeoka teaches an angle 0 “such that the force is positive when the speed is less than a predetermined level and the force is negative when the speed is greater than a predetermined level” in column 4, lines 4—9, and teaches the effect of angle 0 on the forces in the system in equation 2 at the bottom of column 3, and in column 4, lines 9—57. Ans. 3^4. The Examiner explains that the force (F) is a function of angle 0, as expressed in equation 2 at the bottom of column 3. Id. at 4. The Examiner is correct. Shigeoka teaches that the force (F) to drive bush 5 in a slide direction, in which the orbiting swiveling radius is increased, is expressed by equation 2—namely, “/'-//vcos O+Apsin 0-Accos0+/*x,” where “Fs” is centrifugal force, Fp is gas force exerted based upon gas pressure within each compression chamber, Fc is a counterweight centrifugal force exerted by counterweight 10 in the opposite direction to centrifugal force Fs, f»x is the force generated by spring member 15, f is the elastic spring coefficient, and x is the displacement of spring member 15. Shigeoka 3:6—11, 3:39-4:2; Fig. IB. Further, Shigeoka’s objective is to balance the forces such that at orbiting swiveling speeds less than a predetermined level, force F is positive, and at speeds greater than the predetermined level, force F is negative. Id. 4:4—8. Thus, Shigeoka recognizes that angle 0 is a variable which affects the result, i.e., force F. In other words, Shigeoka recognizes angle 0 as a result effective variable. Additionally, Shigeoka teaches that “the factors Fs, Fc, Fp, f»x and the angle 0 are selected so that the force is negative” at speeds greater than a predetermined level and positive at speeds less than the predetermined level. Id. We appreciate that Shigeoka states that “[m]ore specifically, spring 6 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 coefficient f of the spring member 15 is selected.” Id. 4:8—9. However, this this does not negate the teaching in the prior sentence that the other factors, such as angle 0, are also selected to achieve the desired resultant force F, nor does it change the fact that angle 0 is a recognized result effective variable. Claim 1 does not require, and the Examiner does not assert, that Shigeoka provides means for changing angle 0 after setting the angle. Rather, the Examiner finds that Shigeoka recognizes angle 0 as a result effective variable and teaches selecting that angle, among other parameters, to effect the desired force F to achieve the results discussed in column 4, lines 32—57. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that Shigeoka’s angle 0 is an art-recognized result effective variable is correct. As Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rationale that the claimed angle range would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, we need not reach a determination regarding the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 6) that Shigeoka discloses an angle within the claimed range in Figure IB.2 For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Shigeoka and Arata. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 12, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments, as unpatentable over Shigeoka and Arata. See Appeal Br. 3—5. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 12 is AFFIRMED. 2 Notably, neither the Examiner nor Appellant mentions this finding in the briefing for the present appeal. 7 Appeal 2016-004338 Application 13/080,703 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation