Ex Parte Hirao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14680489 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/680,489 04/07/2015
113600 7590 08/31/2018
Brooks Kushman P.C. / Meritor
Twenty Second Floor
1000 Town Center
Southfield, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wagner Yukio Hirao
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.
MERIT 090056 PUS 2 3830
EXAMINER
FLUHART, STACEY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAGNER YUKIO HIRAO, I-CHAO CHUNG,
TOMAZ DOPICO VARELA, and SILVIO M. YAMADA
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated January
15, 2016 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-13 and 15.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hypoid gear set for a drive axle. Claims 1
and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle axle comprising:
a hypoid pinion gear having spiral gear teeth which are
first-handed; and
a hypoid ring gear having a pinion gear engagement side
with spiral gear teeth which are second-handed and opposite
handed to the pinion gear spiral gear teeth for pinion gear
engagement;
wherein when viewing the pinion gear engagement side of
the ring gear with the pinion gear to the right of a ring gear
vertical axis, the pinion gear engages the ring gear in a manner
selected from the group consisting of
(a) the pinion gear is offset below a horizontal axis of the
ring gear and the pinion gear spiral gear teeth are right-handed;
and
ArvinMeritor Technology, LLC ("Appellant") is the applicant
pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated September 26, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), at 3.
2 Claim 14 is objected to, and claim 16 is allowed. Final Act.
Summary.
2
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
(b) the pinion gear is offset above the horizontal axis of
the ring gear and the pinion gear spiral gear teeth are left-
handed.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Chakraborty
Aoyama
US 6,855,087 B2
US 2011/0162473 Al
Feb. 15,2005
July 7, 2011
"Calculating Instructions from the Gleason No. 70 Hypoid Generator"
(hereinafter "Gleason").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Chakraborty.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chakraborty and Gleason.
3. Claims 4---6, 11, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Chakraborty and Aoyama.
4. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chakraborty, Aoyama, and Gleason.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
3
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, and 7-10
as Anticipated By Chakraborty
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, and 7-10 as a group. Appeal Br. 10-14.
We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and dependent
claims 2 and 7-10 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Chakraborty discloses a vehicle axle with a
gear position and spiral handedness as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that when viewing Figure 1 (upside down
and into the page down the y-axis), or Figure 2 (down the y-axis from the
right side of Fig. 2 and thereafter upside down), or Figure 4 ( down the y-axis
from the left side of Fig. 4), pinion gear 44 is offset below the horizontal
axis of ring gear 14 and to the right of the vertical axis of ring gear 14, and
has right-handed gear teeth. Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that Figures
1, 2, and 4 disclose that ring gear 14 has a left-handed spiral (id. at 11) and
that pinion gear 44 has a right-handed spiral (id. at 3).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellant asserts that "the ambiguous and inconsistent
depictions of ring gear 14 in Figures 1--4 of Chakraborty '087 are not
sufficient to teach a hypoid ring gear having a pinion gear engagement side
with left-handed spiral gear teeth as set forth by the Examiner." Appeal Br.
11. Referring to the contour lines in Figures 1 and 2, Appellant asserts that
"[i]n some locations, these contour lines are curved in a left-handed
direction, in other locations they are nearly straight, and in some locations
the spiral handedness is indiscernible." Id. Appellant also asserts that
Figure 3 discloses ring gear 14 having a right-handed spiral, which is
4
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
inconsistent with the left-handed spiral disclosed in Figures 1, 2, and 4. Id.
In support of its arguments, Appellant submits the Declaration of Mr.
Wagner Yukio Hirao Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 ("the Hirao Declaration").
We agree with the Examiner that, due to the perspective nature of the
Figures 1 and 2, the "portions of the gear [identified by Appellant] are
further into the page and thus the contour lines are closer together and more
difficult to discern as being inconsistent." Final Act. 11. We also agree with
the Examiner that "it is clear from FIG. 1 [and FIGS. 2 and 4] overall that
the gear 14 has left-handed spiral teeth," and that Figures 1, 2, and 4
"reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art that a left-handed
spiral gear 14 was in possession of the public." Id.; see Ans. 3.
After considering Appellant's and Mr. Hirao's comments regarding
Figure 3, and assuming that Figure 3's disclosure of ring gear 14 having a
right-handed spiral is correct, we note that pinion gear 44 (not visible in Fig.
3, but located behind driven gear 30) would then have a left-handed spiral
which satisfies claim limitation 1 (b ). When ring gear 14 is rotated clockwise
(when viewed down the Y-axis, i.e., from the right side of Figure 3) so that
pinion gear 44 is located in the upper right quadrant, pinion gear 44 is ( 1)
located to the right of the vertical axis of ring gear 14 and (2) engages ring
gear 14 so that pinion gear 44 is offset above the horizontal axis of ring gear
14 and pinion gear spiral gear teeth are left-handed, as recited in claim l(b).
Thus, the axle disclosed in Figures 1--4 anticipates claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues that Chakraborty does not contain "any text
discussing hypoid offset, spiral angles, or spiral handedness," and
Chakraborty's contour lines are merely "artistic." Appeal Br. 13 ( citing the
Hirao Declaration). Appellant's argument is not persuasive because
5
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
Chakraborty states that Figures 1--4 disclose "hypoid gears," which
inherently have hypoid offset and spiral handedness. See Chakraborty 5 :20-
21; Gleason 1-2; see also Final Act. 12. Also, Mr. Hirao does not provide
an adequate basis for his conclusion that the contour lines are merely
"artistic."
Third, relying on In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843,847 (CCPA 1974),
Appellant argues that the "controlling question is whether a person of skill in
the art, viewing the references without the benefit of [Appellant's]
disclosure, would recognize the solution to [Appellant's] problem." Appeal
Br. 12. Mr. Hirao, for example, states that, contrary to the negative offset
described in the Specification, "common practice in the industry teaches
away from [a] negative hypo id offset due to decreased strength for a given
ring gear diameter." Hirao Declaration 3. Other than noting an
inconsistency in Figure 3, however, Mr. Hirao does not address persuasively
the Examiner's finding that Figures 1, 2, and 4 of Chakraborty anticipate
claim 1. Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Appellant
does not argue claims 2 and 7-10 apart from claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. We
discern no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 7-10, and also
sustain the rejection of those claims.
Rejection 2: Claim 3 as Unpatentable Over Chakraborty and Gleason
Appellant does not argue claim 3 apart from claim 1. Id. For the
reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. We discern no error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and sustain the rejection of claim 3.
6
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
Rejection 3: Claims 4-6, 11, 12, and 15
as Unpatentable Over Chakraborty and Aoyama
Claims 4---6
Appellant does not argue claims 4--6 apart from claim 1. Id. at 15.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. We discern no
error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 4---6, and sustain the rejection of
these claims.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites that "the spiral teeth on the pinion gear have a pinion
gear spiral angle which is less than the ring gear spiral angle forming a
negative pinion offset configuration."
The Examiner finds that Figures 1, 2, and 4 of Chakraborty disclose
spiral teeth on the pinion gear having a pinion-gear spiral-angle which is less
than the ring-gear spiral-angle forming a negative pinion offset
configuration. Final Act. 8, 13. The Examiner explains that
any prior art which discloses a negative pinion offset
configuration will inherently, i.e., necessarily, disclose the spiral
angle relationship recited in claim 11 in order to properly
operate. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would
recognize this inherent characteristic within a negatively offset
gearing. In fact, in Mr. Hirao' s Declaration, he states that he is
one having ordinary skill in the art (see page 1 of Declaration)
and that a hypoid gear set with a negative hypoid offset would
have this physical relationship, i.e., that the spiral angle of the
pinion gear must be smaller than the spiral angle of the ring gear
(see page 2 of Declaration).
Ans. 8-9.
In response to the Examiner's explanation, Appellant merely states
that "the cited references simply do not disclose or suggest the number of
7
Appeal2017-006527
Application 14/680,489
gear teeth ratio in combination with the recited spiral angle relationships."
Reply Brief, dated March 13, 2017, at 3; see also Appeal Br. 15. Because
Appellant does not address the Examiner's inherency findings, Appellant
does not identify error by the Examiner. The rejection of claim 11 is
sustained.
Claims 12 and 15
Appellant does not argue claims 12 and 15 apart from claim 11.
Appeal Br. 16. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 11 is sustained.
We discern no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 12 and 15, and
sustain the rejection of these claims.
Rejection 4: Claim 13
as Unpatentable Over Chakraborty, Aoyama, and Gleason
Appellant does not argue claim 13 apart from claim 11. Id. at 16. For
the reasons above, the rejection of claim 11 is sustained. We discern no
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, and sustain the rejection of
claim 13.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and
15 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8