Ex Parte Hedman

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14401642 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/401,642
51707 7590
WRB-IPLLP
801 N. Pitt Street
Suite 123
FILING DATE
11/17/2014
05/02/2019
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anders Hedman
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.
000009-796 5848
EXAMINER
BROWN, JOSEPH HENRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
HARRY@WRB-IP.COM
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDERS HEDMAN
Appeal2017-009080
Application 14/401,642 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Anders Hedman ("Appellant") seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10. We heard oral argument
on April 25, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Volvo Lastvagnar AB as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009080
Application 14/401,642
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure "relates to the arrangement of gearwheels in a
dual clutch transmission, especially a dual clutch transmission for on-road
vehicles." Spec. ,r 1.
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A dual clutch transmission comprising;
• a first and a second input shaft provided with a first and
second input means respectively,
• a centre shaft,
• a countershaft, and
• a first and a second primary gear step, wherein the first and
second input shaft are coaxial arranged with the centre shaft and
can transfer torque from the first and second input means to the
countershaft via the first and the second primary gear step, the
first primary gear step comprises a first input gearwheel and a
first driven gearwheel, wherein the first input gearwheel is
rotationally fixed with the first input shaft and the first input
gearwheel is arranged upon the centre shaft, wherein the first
input gearwheel is connected to the first input shaft through a
connection allowing an axial play, whereby the connection is a
spline coupling.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zaiser (US 5,181,431, issued Jan. 26, 1993) and Yamasaki
(US 2007/0144861 Al, published June 28, 2007).
Claims 2---6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zaiser, Yamasaki, and Gumpoltsberger (US 7,267,022 B2,
issued Sept. 11, 2007).
2
Appeal2017-009080
Application 14/401,642
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zaiser, Yamasaki, Gumpoltsberger, and Beck (US 2010/0150488 Al,
published June 17, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Zaiser and Yamasaki
(Claims 1 and 9)
Claim 1 recites, in part, that "the first input gearwheel is rotationally
fixed with the first input shaft and the first input gearwheel is arranged upon
the centre shaft, wherein the first input gearwheel is connected to the first
input shaft through a connection allowing an axial play, whereby the
connection is a spline coupling." Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App. (emphasis
added)).
The Examiner finds that Zaiser discloses, among other things, a first
input shaft (main shaft 22) connected to a first input gearwheel (main-shaft
gearwheel 27) through "a connection." Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Zaiser, Fig. 1 ).
The Examiner finds, however, that Zaiser does not disclose that "the
connection is a spline coupling, allowing an axial play." Id. at 3 (boldface
omitted). The Examiner relies on Yamasaki for teaching a spline coupling
connection. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zaiser with a spline coupling
connection, as taught by Yamasaki, to "allow axial relative movement
therebetween while enabling torque transmission without any slip." Id.
( citing Yamasaki ,r 26).
Appellant contends that Zaiser discloses "'a main shaft 22 which is
coaxial to the input shaft 4 [ which is coaxial with the output shaft 5] and is
3
Appeal2017-009080
Application 14/401,642
firmly connected to a common main-shaft gearwheel 27 of two front
gearwheel stages." Appeal Br. 4 (boldface omitted); see Zaiser, col. 3,
11. 19--22. Appellant also contends that Yamasaki merely discloses a splined
connection, and persons skilled in the art would not have modified Zaiser in
view of Yamasaki to provide a splined connection between the input shaft
and main-shaft gearwheel, as suggested by the Examiner, because this
modification would have been contrary to Zaiser's disclosure that "the input
shaft should be 'firmly connected' to the main-shaft gearwheel." Id.
Appellant submits that providing the ability of Zaiser's main-shaft
gearwheel 27 to move axially relative to main shaft 22 does not constitute a
reason with rational underpinnings for the modification. Reply Br. 3. Thus,
Appellant contends, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason for
modifying Zaiser in view of Yamasaki. Id.
Appellant's contentions are persuasive. The Examiner's stated
rationale for modifying Zaiser to provide a splined connection between the
input shaft and main-shaft gearwheel essentially amounts to a description of
what a splined connection does-i.e., "allows axial relative movement
[between connected components] while enabling torque transmission
without any slip." Yamazaki ,r 26. Indeed, Appellant acknowledges that
splined connections are well-known to be used in the art for the transmission
of torque without any slip. Reply Br. 3. However, "[a]s is clear from cases
such as Adams, a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007). The Examiner's rationale does not give an adequate reason why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have desired to allow such axial relative
4
Appeal2017-009080
Application 14/401,642
movement particularly between the main shaft 22 and main-shaft gearwheel
27, while enabling torque transmission without slip, in Zaiser. For example,
the Examiner does not identify some need or problem that would be
addressed by this modification. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, and of dependent claim 9, as unpatentable over Zaiser and
Yamasaki.
Obviousness over Zaiser, Yamasaki, and Gumpoltsberger
(Claims 2-6, 8, and 10)
The Examiner's reliance on Gumpoltsberger as teaching features of
dependent claims 2---6, 8, and 10 fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection
of parent claim 1. Final Act. 3-5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2---6, 8, and 10 as unpatentable over Zaiser, Yamasaki,
and Gumpoltsberger.
Obviousness over Zaiser, Yamasaki, Gumpoltsberger, and Beck
(Claim 7)
The Examiner's reliance on Beck as teaching features of dependent
claim 7 fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Zaiser, Yamasaki, Gumpoltsberger, and Beck.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10.
REVERSED
5