Ex Parte Heinz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

10037427 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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.
10/037,427 01/02/2002 Guenther Heinz B01-085A 7207
26683 7590 09/24/2012
THE GATES CORPORATION
IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3
1551 WEWATTA STREET
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
KRUER, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2012 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 GUENTHER HEINZ and HANS-DIETER METZEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-26, 28-31, 33-38, and 43-45. (App. Br. 2). We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, 26, 28, and 43-45 are independent claims. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
1. A lift belt comprising:
an elastomeric body having a width w
and a thickness t and having a pulley
engaging surface;
the elastomeric body having an aspect
ratio w/t that is greater than 1;
a tensile cord contained within the
elastomeric body and extending
longitudinally;
the pulley engaging surface having a
ribbed profile extending longitudinally; and
the ribbed profile having a rib with an
angle of approximately 90°.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants request review of following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 28, 31, and 43-45 as unpatentable over
Winninger (US 6,033,331, iss. Mar. 7, 2000) in view of Conrad (US
3,980,174, iss. Sep. 14, 1976). (Ans. 4).1

1 The Answer indicates that claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 28, 31, and 43-45 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Winninger in view of
Conrad. However, the ground of rejection is listed under the heading "Claim
Rejections – 35 USC § 103." (Ans. 4). In addition, the Examiner does not
indicate that Conrad is applied in the rejection for any of the purposes set
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

3
2. Claims 2, 5, 14, 17, and 29 as unpatentable over Winninger,
Conrad, and Adifon (WO 99/43598, pub. Sep. 2, 1999). (Ans. 5).
3. Claims 3, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 30 as unpatentable over
Winninger, Conrad, Adifon, Suhling (DE 3,934,654, pub. May 23, 1991),
and Siefert (US 3,662,596, iss. May 16, 1972). (Ans. 6).
4. Claims 7 and 19 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad,
Adifon, Suhling, Siefert, and White (US 4,981,462, iss. Jan. 1, 1991).2
(Ans. 7).
5. Claims 8-10 and 20 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad,
Adifon, Suhling, Siefert, White, and Stork (US 3,948,113, iss. Apr. 6, 1976).
(Ans. 8).
6. Claims 11 and 23 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad, and
Siefert. (Ans. 8).
7. Claims 12 and 24 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad, and
Suhling. (Ans. 9).
8. Claims 25, 33, 34, 36, and 37 as unpatentable over Winninger,
Conrad, and Stork. (Ans. 9).
9. Claim 26 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad, Suhling, and
Siefert. (Ans. 10).

forth in MPEP § 2131.01 ("Multiple Reference 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections").
For these reasons, in this appeal we treat the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 13,
16, 28, 31, and 43-45 as having been made under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2 Claims 7 and 19 depend directly from claims 3 and 15, respectively. In the
February 4, 2009 Final Office Action, claims 3 and 15 are rejected over the
combination of references listed in rejection (3) above (Final Office Action
4); and Conrad is not listed in the ground of rejection of claims 7 and 19, but
is discussed by the Examiner regarding these claims (Final Office Action 5).
The Answer correctly lists Conrad in the ground of rejection of claims 7 and
19.
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

4
10. Claims 35 and 38 as unpatentable over Winninger, Conrad,
Suhling, Siefert, and Stork. (Ans. 11).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 28, 31, and 43-45 – Winninger and Conrad
Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 28, 31, and 43-45 as a group.
(App. Br. 18-28). We select claim 1 as representative of the grouping;
claims 4, 6, 13, 16, 28, 31, and 43-45 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found Winninger discloses an elastomeric body and a
plurality of ribs (23) with "a rib (23) depicted as having an angle of approx.
90°." (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner also found Winninger is "otherwise silent
with respect to an angle of their rib while referencing norms and
dimensional designations in accordance to ISO 9981, for which a rib angle
of 40° is of consideration (2nd Ed., Table 1)." (Ans. 5). The Examiner
found Conrad teaches a rib (42) having a 90° angle "(supplement to 2 x 48,
Fig. 4)" for maintaining belt alignment and enhancing frictional contact.
(Ans. 5)(citing Conrad col. 2, l. 7, col. 3, ll. 45-55, Figs. 2, 4). The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify Winninger with the teaching of Conrad "to provide a rib
having a rib angle of 90° for enhanced power transfer and runnability for
benefits of reduced operating costs." (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that Winninger's Figure 1 does not provide any
competent information concerning the rib angle. (App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 3-
4). Appellants contend that Winninger's figures cannot be scaled "when the
specification otherwise expressly describes the angle depicted" (App. Br.
21), and that the Examiner improperly relied on scaling Winninger's figures
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

5
(Reply Br. 3-5). In this regard, Appellants contend that Winninger describes
the rib angle of the belt in terms of ISO 9981, and that this standard
describes a pulley groove angle α of 40°, which corresponds to the rib angle.
(App. Br. 22) (see also Winninger col. 3, ll. 26-36, Fig. 1).
International Standard ISO 9981 (1998(E)) pertains to pulleys and V-
ribbed belts. Figure 1 shows the groove dimensions of a pulley of PK
profile, and indicates a groove angle α. (See Intl. Std. ISO 9981 1-3). Table
1 lists a groove angle α for testing and actual use of 40° ± 1°. (See Intl. Std.
ISO 9981 3).
In response, the Examiner acknowledged that Winninger does not
explicitly describe a rib angle of approximately 90°. (Ans. 12). The
Examiner applied Conrad for its teaching of a belt ribbed profile that
comprises a rib angle of approximately 90°. (Ans. 12-13).
Appellants further contend that Conrad does not teach a rib having an
angle of approximately 90°, but teaches "a longitudinal notch in an
otherwise rectangular rib." (App. Br. 19). Appellants contend that the
Examiner's reading of the claims is overbroad and inconsistent with the
Specification. (App. Br. 24). In this regard, Appellants contend that the
"belt rib angle" is disclosed as "α" in the Specification, and shown in Figure
1. (App. Br. 25). Appellants contend that the "angle 'α' relates to the
relationship between the belt rib sides which sides diverge toward the belt
tensile cords 15. Put another way, the claimed belt angle α sweeps across
and encompasses rib material 25." (App. Br. 25).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites "a rib with
an angle." Claim 1 itself does not further limit the scope of this term.
Generally, the Patent Office gives claims their broadest reasonable
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

6
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading the claim language
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There are
two exceptions to this general rule: namely, when the Specification sets out a
definition of a claim term, or when Appellants disavow the full scope of the
term. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2012). See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (An applicant is permitted to define specific terms used to describe the
invention by setting forth a definition for terms with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness and precision.); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004) ("Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.") To act as his own
lexicographer, "[i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single
embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the
patentee must 'clearly express an intent' to redefine the term." See Thorner,
669 F.3d at 1365 (internal citations omitted). Appellants' Specification
describes "a rib angle α" (Spec. 5), but does not describe the meaning of this
angle. Figure 1 shows an angle "α," which Appellants contend is the "rib
angle α." Even assuming that the claim term, "an angle," corresponds to the
"rib angle α" described in the Specification, Appellants have not established
that the Specification clearly expresses an intent to define the term "rib angle
α," or that the Specification provides any express disclaimer of a broad
interpretation of the term. Nor have Appellants provided any evidence that
the term "rib angle" has any particular meaning that would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

7
Conrad discloses a belt including ribs 40 having side surfaces 42 and a
bottom surface 44. (See Conrad col. 3, ll. 1-8; Figs. 2, 4). An angle 48 is
formed by the rib 40. (See Conrad col. 3, ll. 14-18; Fig. 4). Conrad
discloses that the angle 48 can be approximately 45°. (See Conrad col. 3, ll.
23-26). It is reasonable to find that Figure 4 shows an angle of
approximately 90° formed by surfaces of the rib 40. This finding is
consistent with Conrad's disclosure that angle 48 can be approximately 45°.
(See Ans. 13-14).
Appellants contend that, "[a]t best Conrad teaches a portion of a rib
having an angle of 45°, namely, a rib tip 46." (App. Br. 27) (citing Conrad
Figs. 2, 4). However, as discussed supra, Appellants' Specification does not
define the term "rib angle," and the Examiner relied on Conrad for its
teaching of an angle of approximately 90°. Appellants also contend that the
claimed ribs do not comprise a concavity or notch. (Reply Br. 7). The
Examiner explained that the modification of Winninger in view of Conrad's
teaching of a rib with an angle of approximately 90° can be understood in
two ways. (Ans. 13). Firstly, modification can be understood as "yielding a
belt of Winninger et al with the ribbed profile of Conrad, wherein said
profile has a rib with the angle of appellant's interest and therewith the
'notch' of Conrad, which is not precluded by the claim language." (Ans. 13).
As discussed supra, Appellants have not provided any persuasive argument
why the claim limitation, "a rib with an angle," should be construed to have
any particular meaning that distinguishes this limitation from the angle of
the "notch" of Conrad's rib 40.
Secondly, the Examiner explained that the modification of Winninger
in view of Conrad can be understood as "the ribbed profile of Winninger . . .
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

8
comprises the rib of Winninger . . . with an angle as depicted by Winninger
. . . for features as taught by Conrad . . . ." (Ans. 13). The Examiner added
that "in lieu of introducing the 'notch' of Conrad to the rib of Winninger . . .,
the modification could comprise constructing the rib angle of Winninger . . .
as an angle of Conrad's rib for the aforementioned benefits as well." (Ans.
14). Appellants have not provided any persuasive argument responding to
the Examiner's second proposed modification of Winninger in view of
Conrad.
Appellants also contend that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Winninger and Conrad because making Conrad's "notch" in
Winninger's rib would diminish the rib's ability to transmit power through
frictional contact with a pulley. (App. Br. 28). However, Appellants have
not provided any evidence that the Examiner's modification of Winninger
would significantly diminish the ribs' ability to transmit power. As such,
Appellants' contention is not persuasive.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16,
28, 31, and 43-45 as unpatentable over Winninger and Conrad.
Claims 2, 5, 14, 17, and 29 – Winninger, Conrad, and Adifon
Claims 2, 5, 14, 17, and 29 depend from independent claims 1, 13, or
28. Appellants contend that Adifon does not teach or suggest ribs, and does
not cure the deficiencies of Winninger and Conrad. (App. Br. 29). As we
find no deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 28 over the
combination of Winninger and Conrad, for the reasons discussed supra, we
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 14, 17, and 29 for similar reasons.

Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

9
Claims 3, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 30 – Winninger, Conrad,
Adifon, Suhling, and Siefert
Claims 3, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 30 depend from independent claims
1, 13, or 28. Appellants contend that neither Suhling nor Siefert cures the
alleged absence of a rib or rib angle of approximately 90° in Winninger,
Conrad, and Adifon. (App. Br. 29). As we find no deficiencies in the
rejection of claims 1, 13, and 28 over the combination of Winninger and
Conrad, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 30 for
similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 19 – Winninger, Conrad, Adifon, Suhling, Siefert, and White
Claims 7 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively. As
discussed supra, we treat this rejection as also being over Conrad.
Appellants’ contentions are directed substantially only to the alleged
deficiencies of White. (App. Br. 30). As we find no deficiencies in the
rejection of claims 1 and 13, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 19.
Claims 8-10 and 20 – Winninger, Conrad, Adifon,
Suhling, Siefert, White, and Stork
Claims 8-10 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Appellants’ contentions are directed substantially only to the alleged
deficiencies of Stork. (App. Br. 30-31). As we find no deficiencies in the
rejection of claims 1 and 13, we sustain the rejection of claims 8-10 and 20.
Claims 11 and 23 – Winninger, Conrad, and Siefert;
Claims 12 and 24 – Winninger, Conrad, and Suhling;
Claims 25, 33, 34, 36, and 37 - Winninger, Conrad, and Stork;
Claims 35 and 38 – Winninger, Conrad, Suhling, Siefert, and Stork
For each of these rejections, Appellants merely state that the as-
rejected claims are dependent claims. (App. Br. 31-32). As Appellants have
Appeal 2010-002841
Application 10/037,427

10
not apprised us of any error for any one of these rejections, we sustain each
rejection.
Claim 26 – Winninger, Conrad, Suhling, and Siefert
Appellants contend that neither Suhling nor Seifert discloses the claim
limitation "a rib with an angle of approximately 90°." (App. Br. 32).
However, because Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the
Examiner's finding that Conrad teaches this limitation, we sustain the
rejection of claim 26 for similar reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-26, 28-31, 33-38, and 43-
45 is AFFIRMED. 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls