Ex Parte HO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2014

11420005 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte CHAO-CHANG HO
____________________

Appeal 2012-004190
Application 11/420,005
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
12 and 14-17. App. Br. 5-6. Claim 13 has been cancelled.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An amendment cancelling claim 13 was filed on July 28, 2011, and entered
October 28, 2011.
Appeal 2012-004190
Application 11/420,005

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 122 is independent. Claim 12 is reproduced below.3
12. A park-position mechanism comprising:

a selector mechanism that comprises a cam
mounted on a selector hub shaft;

a park gear mounted on a main shaft and
corresponding in position to the cam, a park arm
arranged between the cam and the park gear, the
park arm having a holed base that is fit over a stud
fixed in a crankshaft case to rotate and support the
park arm in the crankshaft case;

a torsion spring being arranged between the park
arm and the crankshaft case with ends attached to
the park arm and the crankshaft case respectively,
the park arm having a driven section and an
engaging section respectively extending from
opposite sides of the holed base, the engaging
section forming a projection;

characterized in that the driven section forms a
guide hole in which a guide rod is received in an
axially movable manner, a front end of the guide
rod having a stop end, the guide rod being engaged
with the cam and selectively driven by the cam to
cause engagement of the projection of the
engaging section with the park gear, a resilient
member arranged between the guide hole and the
guide rod, wherein the resilient member and the
guide rod function to absorb a driving force

2 Due to a typographical error, the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter,
appearing at pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief, refers to claim 11 rather than
claim 12.
3 The amendment filed July 28, 2011, and entered October 28, 2011, also
amended claim 12 to incorporate the limitations of now-cancelled claim 13.
Appeal 2012-004190
Application 11/420,005

3
induced by the cam to eliminate direct application
of the force on the driven section thereby
protecting the park arm from being damaged by
excessive amount of force acting thereon.

REJECTION
Claims 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukuda (US 6,725,962 B1, issued Apr. 27, 2004) and
Wuest (US 3,024,775, issued Mar. 13, 1962).

ANALYSIS
Claims 12 and 14-17 unpatentable over Fukuda and Wuest.
The Examiner found that Fukuda discloses all limitations of the
claimed invention with the exception of a construction of a driven section of
a parking arm that functions to absorb a driving force induced by the cam to
eliminate direct application of the force on the driven section thereby
protecting the park arm from being damaged by excessive amount of force
acting thereon. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies on Wuest as supplying the
teaching of such a driven section construction, including a guide hole, and
an axially movable guide rod therein engaged with and selectively driven by
a cam to cause engagement of the projection of the engaging section, by
virtue of a resilient member arranged between such guide hole and guide
rod. Ans. 6, 8-9 (citing Wuest, col. 2, lines 18-23 and 52-59). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to provide, in the device of Fukuda, the
driven section construction of Wuest, which would eliminate direct
application of the driving force on the driven section and therefore would
Appeal 2012-004190
Application 11/420,005

4
protect the park arm from being damaged by excessive force acting thereon
as, according to the Examiner, is taught by Wuest. Id.
Appellant agrees with the Examiner as to the structural shortcomings
of Fukuda. App. Br. 13-14. Appellant submits, however, that Wuest
provides the spring 82 pushing against the upper end of the tappet head
shank 74 and the adjusting plug 78 in order to keep the rocker arm end 26 in
constant contact with the valve stem boss 28 to thereby reduce or eliminate
wear and noise at such location. App. Br. 14-15.
The Examiner’s stated basis for the proposed modification has not
been established by the preponderance of the evidence. The Wuest
reference only discloses that the absorbing and cushioning effected by the
resilient member 82 reduces noise and wear in the shaft 22 and the rocker
arm 24, and between the rocker arm end 26 and the valve stem boss 28, and
acts to keep the rocker arm end 26 in constant contact with valve stem boss
28 to also reduce wear and noise at that location. Wuest, col. 2, ll. 52-59.
Wuest does not disclose that the resilient member is provided to protect
components from being damaged by excessive force acting thereon.
Further, the Fukuda reference does not evidence that direct cam-induced
force acting on a driving section is perceived as posing a problem.4 As such

4 In this regard it is noted that the Fukuda reference already discloses a
resilient member 146 which forms, with peg 152, a lost motion coupling of
the cam 142 and the cam drum 96. Member 146 functions to absorb forces
in the clockwise direction in the park position as the engaging section pawl
170 initially contacts the teeth but then snaps the cam in the
counterclockwise direction as the pawl 170 moves into position between the
teeth. Such counterclockwise snapping results in the rocker arm coming to
rest on the larger diameter portion of the cam holding the pawl in between
the teeth. Fukuda at figs. 5C-E, col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 29, the paragraph
bridging cols. 7-8 and col. 8, line 46-col. 9, line 14.
Appeal 2012-004190
Application 11/420,005

5
the Examiner has not established that the proposed modification would
present a reasonable expectation of success or lead to predictable results.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 14-17.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 12 and 14-17.

REVERSED

mls