Ex Parte Hauck

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12867814 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/867,814 11/02/2010 Hans Jurgen Hauck
67424 7590 03/15/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DKT08017A 3217
EXAMINER
SETLIFF, MATTHIEU F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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 HANS JURGEN HAUCK
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hans Jurgen Hauck ("Appellant"1) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17. Claims 8 and 12
are objected to, and claims 18 and 19 are allowed. Final Act. 2, 11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b ).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BorgWarner Inc. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
THE CLAHvIED SUBJECT ivIATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A clutch device (2) comprising:
at least one output hub ( 46, 48), which can be rotationally locked
to a transmission input shaft (50,52);
an input hub (16), in which an assembly opening (54) is
provided, so that a fastener (58, 60) for axially fixing the output hub
(46) to the transmission input shaft (50) can be introduced via the
assembly opening (54); and
a flex plate (74), on which a hub part (56) is provided, which can
be rotationally locked to the input hub (16), wherein the hub part (56)
is connected to the input hub (16) in such a way that the assembly
opening (54) can be closed by the hub part (56).
Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
THE REJECTION2
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kundermann (US 6,499 ,578 B 1, iss. Dec. 31, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Kundermann
discloses a flex plate, as claimed. See Final Act. 4, Examiner's Annotated Fig. 13
of Kundermann. The Examiner further found that "[t]he indicated flex plate is
capable of flexing in a desired direction at least because it is well known that all
real bodies deform, either elastically or plastically, at least a small amount under
load." Ans. 4. With reference to the access hole in Kundermann's plate, the
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Ans. 2.
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
Examiner explained that "a plate having holes will be inherently more flexible than
a similar plate having no holes." Final Act. 12. The Examiner maintained that
"[ n Jo specific structure can be found in [claim 1] that differentiates the claimed
'flex plate' from that shown by Kundermann" and that "no circumstances are
claimed that would indicate any specific flexing requirement of the plate." Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to adequately support the finding
that the identified plate in Kundermann is a "flex plate," and further contends that
"a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the component referred to
by the Examiner in FIG. 3 as being a flex plate." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant submits
that "[ e ]ven if the plate referred to in Kundermann is capable of flexing, there is no
evidence that the plate will act as a flex plate," as disclosed in claim 1. Id.
Appellant's Specification defines the claim term "flex plate" as follows:
A flex plate can therefore be taken to mean, in particular, a torque-
transmitting plate, which is of a flexible design in an axial direction,
such that an axial misalignment of the input side in relation to the output
side of the torque-transmitting plate is not transmitted to the output side
of the torque-transmitting plate or vice-versa.
Spec., p. 3, 11. 14--18. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding that
Kundermann's clutch device includes a flex plate is not adequately supported, in
that Kundermann does not disclose whether the plate identified by the Examiner is
of a flexible design in an axial direction. We therefore do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kundermann.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION for claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kundermann and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
disclosed at page 1, line 29 to page 2, line 1 of Appellant's Specification
("AAP A"), which states:
Also known in the case of hydrodynamic torque converters is the
provision of so-called flex plates between the input side of the torque
converter and an output side of a power unit, which on the one hand
can transmit a torque from the drive side to the input side of the torque
converter and on the other is capable of cushioning axial misalignments
of the drive-side component in such a way that these are not transmitted
to the input side of the torque converter.
Spec., p. 1, 11. 29-p. 2, 1. 1 (emphasis added). Appellant's Specification
teaches one skilled in the art that it was known to provide a flex plate
between the input side of the torque converter and an output side of a power
unit.
We agree with the Examiner that Kundermann teaches a clutch device
comprising at least one output hub, which can be rotationally locked to a
transmission input shaft, and an input hub, in which an assembly opening is
provided; so that a fastener for axially fixing the output hub to the transmission
input shaft can be introduced via the assembly opening. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing
Kundermann, Fig. 13). We also agree with the Examiner that Kundermann teaches
a hub part that is connected to the input hub in such a way that the assembly
opening can be closed by the hub part. Kundermann also teaches "a torque-
transmission connection between the coupling end 16 of the crankshaft 14 and the
clutch hub 34." Kundermann, col. 11, 11. 36-45.
To the extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand
Kundermann's plate to satisfy the claimed "flex plate," we reason that it would
have been obvious at the time of Appellant's invention to modify Kundermann's
plate, in view of the teachings of the AAP A, to be of a flexible design in an axial
direction in order to transmit torque from the crankshaft 14 to the clutch hub 34
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
while cushioning axial misalignments of the crankshaft in such a way that they are
not transmitted to the clutch hub. 3
Accordingly, the apparatus set forth in claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17 would
have been obvious over Kundermann and the AAP A, and we enter a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION for these claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Kundermann and the AAP A.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-17.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION for claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kundermann and the AAPA
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This decision contains a
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). "A new
ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
3 We note that other prior art references also teach a flex plate between an input
side of a clutch device and an output from a power unit. For example, Staub (US
4,252,227, iss. Feb. 24, 1981) teaches "a conventional engine crankshaft 10 to
which is secured ... a conventional flex plate 12 [and the] flex plate 12 is also
secured to an input shell [of a clutch device]." Staub, col. 1, 11. 28-34.
Appeal2013-011069
Application 12/867,814
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).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)