Ex Parte Kautsch et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 11, 2019

13499655 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/499,655 06/12/2012
26161 7590 04/15/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dewaine Kautsch
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.
24855-0027US 1 8689
EXAMINER
CHARLESTON, JEAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEW AINE KAUTSCH and ALAIN LUSSIER
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LISA M. GUIJT, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--17, 19, 137-149, 153, 158, 160, 162-178,
and 182-184. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 CAMSO INC. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated March 9, 201 7, as
supplemented by the Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Decision dated July 13,
2017.
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 153, reproduced below as the sole independent on appeal with
disputed limitations emphasized, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal.
153. A track assembly for providing traction to a vehicle, the
track assembly being mountable to an axle of the vehicle to
replace a ground-engaging wheel of the vehicle, the track
assembly comprising:
a) a plurality of wheels comprising:
i) a leading idler wheel and a trailing idler wheel
spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track assembly,
an axis of rotation of the axle of the vehicle being located
between an axis of rotation of the leading idler wheel and an
axis of rotation of the trailing idler wheel in the longitudinal
direction of the rack assembly; and
ii) a driver wheel for rotating when the axle of the
vehicle rotates,
b) a transmission for transmitting power from the axle of the
vehicle to the driver wheel such that a rotational speed of the
driver wheel is different from a rotational speed of the axle of
the vehicle; and
c) an endless track disposed around the wheels, the endless track
comprising an inner side facing the wheels and a ground-
engaging outer side for engaging the ground, the endless track
engaging the driver wheel such that rotation of the driver
wheel imparts motion to the endless track.
THE REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--16, 19, 137, 138, 148, 149, 153, 158, 162,
163, 166-178, and 182-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
3 The Examiner's rejection of claims 161 and 179-181 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) has been withdrawn. Ans. 19.
2
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
unpatentable over Heard (GB 2 435 868 A; published Sept. 12, 2007) and
Beckstrom (US 2005/0035655 Al; published Feb. 17, 2005).
II. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Heard, Beckstrom, and Zuchoski (US 2010/0108421 Al;
published May 6, 2010).
III. Claim 160 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Heard, Beckstrom, and Tucker (US 2006/0267405 Al;
published Nov. 30, 2006).
IV. Claims 164 and 165 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Heard, Beckstrom, and Dow (US 5,373,909; issued Dec.
20, 1994).
V. Claims 139-145 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Heard, Beckstrom, and Dudzinski (US 2005/0077784 Al;
published Apr. 14, 2005).
VI. Claims 146 and 147 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Heard, Beckstrom, and Rosen boom (US 2007/013 8866
Al; published June 21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 153, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Heard discloses a track assembly mountable to an axle of a vehicle to
replace a ground-engaging wheel and comprising wheels, including a
leading idler wheel (i.e., 12), a trailing idler wheel (i.e., 16), and a driver
wheel (i.e., drive wheel 2), and also an endless track (i.e., flexible track 20),
including an inner side (i.e., track 24) and a ground-engaging outer side, as
3
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
claimed. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Heard, Fig. 1 ); see also Ans. 3--4. The
Examiner determines that Heard fails to disclose a transmission for
transmitting power from the axle of the vehicle to the driver wheel such that
a rotational speed of the driver wheel is different from a rotational speed of
the axle of the vehicle, as claimed, and relies on Beckstrom for such a
disclosure. Final Act. 3 (citing Beckstrom ,r 19, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 4. In
particular, the Examiner finds that
it is well known in the art, as taught by the reference to supply
transmission component, gearing component between turning
axle and drive wheel component in order to provide specific
mechanical advantage depend upon the terrains. . . . It is also
well-known that "the function of any transmission is transferring
engine power to the driveshaft and rear wheels ( or axle half
shafts and front wheels in a front-wheel-drive vehicle). Gears
inside the transmission change the vehicle's drive-wheel speed
and torque in relation to engine speed and torque".
Ans. 19-20 (citing Beckstrom ,r 19, Fig. 7). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to modify Heard to include a transmission, as
taught by Beckstrom, "to allow the speed of the vehicle with tracks to be
different than the speed of the vehicle with tires since the environment of the
vehicle would likely be different when the tracks are on it." Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that "Heard' s track apparatus is designed
specifically for its drive wheel 2 to be directly mounted to the vehicle's axle
RA" and therefore, "modifying Heard' s track apparatus to include a
transmission like Beckstrom's would require a substantial redesign of
Heard's track apparatus." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). In support,
Appellants submit that Heard's "drive wheel 2 would have to be
repositioned within the track apparatus to be mounted on another axle
4
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
without interfering with other components of the track apparatus," and
"[t]his would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
especially in view of the significant size of the drive wheel 2." Appeal Br.
8. Appellants further submit that "Heard's track apparatus does not have a
support structure at an upper portion of the track apparatus for mounting the
drive wheel 2 elsewhere than at the vehicle's axle RA." Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's proposed modification
must include repositioning the axle of the drive wheel within the track
assembly from alignment with the vehicle axle to a position offset from the
vehicle axle, in order to incorporate a transmission, including a transmission
chain, between the drive wheel and the shaft of the vehicle axle. However,
Appellants' conclusory argument does not persuade us that such design
changes are beyond the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. In
other words, Appellants' contentions appear to represent mere attorney
argument without supporting evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual
evidence carry no evidentiary weight"). Moreover, contrary to Appellants'
argument and as discussed in more detail infra, Heard discloses that it is
known with respect to conventional modular track assemblies to provide a
support structure at an upper portion of the track apparatus for mounting a
drive wheel, although Heard also discloses, as an improvement, mounting
drive wheel 2 alongside the idler wheels. See, e.g., Heard, p. 1, 11. 22-24
(with respect to known modular track apparatus, "[t]he drive wheel is
supported above, rather than alongside, the idler wheels," while still being
"fastened directly to the driven axle of the vehicle by a suitable mounting
arrangement").
5
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification
"would run contrary to the principle operation of Heard," because "Heard
discloses that, unlike in conventional track assemblies, the track 20 is guided
only by the drive wheel 2, rather than also being guided by the idler wheels,"
which "Heard is able to achieve ... because the drive wheel 2 guides the
track 20 at upper and lower regions of the drive wheel 2 due to its position
within the track apparatus." Appeal Br. 9 (citing Heard, p. 7, 11. 25-28, p. 9,
11. 13-17); see also Reply Br. 3--4 (arguing that the Examiner's proposed
modification "would impermissibly change a principle of Heard or render it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" because "unlike in conventional
track assemblies, the track 20 is guided only by the drive wheel 2, rather
than also being guided by the idler wheels") ( citing Heard, p. 7, 11. 25-28, p.
9, 11. 13-17).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although a prior art
reference may indicate that a particular combination is undesirable for its
own purposes, the reference can nevertheless teach that combination if it
remains suitable for the claimed invention. See In re Kahn, 441 F .3d 977,
990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he teaching of [a reference] is not limited to the
specific invention disclosed."). Here, Heard discloses that when replacing a
vehicle wheel with a modular track apparatus a larger drive wheel that
solely guides the track may offer advantages (Heard, p. 7, 11. 25-28),
however, Heard also discloses that it is known for the drive wheel to be
"supported above, rather than alongside, the idler wheels" (id. p. 1, 1. 10-p.
2, 1. 3 ( citing European Patent 1262398), wherein, in such a conventional
modular track apparatus, "the lower portion of the track is usually supported
and guided by idler wheels that engage with the inner surface of the track"
6
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
(id. p. 4, 11. 24--26 (emphasis added)). Thus, modifying the conventional
modular track apparatus, as taught by Heard, to incorporate a transmission,
as taught by Beckstrom, renders the claimed invention obvious.
Third, Appellants argue that "Beckstrom's transmission would not be
suitable for Heard's drive wheel 2," because "Beckstrom's transmission is
located between two sections of its drive wheel 25A" and "Heard's drive
wheel 2 is designed completely differently without two sections between
which a transmission could be located." Appeal Br. 9 (citing ,r 26; Figs. 6,
7). Appellants submit that "[t]his would even further complicate and render
less obvious the redesign necessary to incorporate Beckstrom's transmission
into Heard's track apparatus." Id.
The Examiner, however, is not proposing the bodily incorporation of
Beckstrom's split drive wheel; rather, the Examiner relies on Beckstrom for
teaching that it is known "to utilize a transmission to have reduction between
turning axle and drive wheel component." Ans. 21; see Beckstrom ,r 19.
Thus, Appellants' argument does address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. Moreover, Figure 1 of Beckstrom illustrates how transmission 26
allows drive wheel 22 to be offset from drive motor 24 ( at the vehicle axle)
so drive wheel 22 engages endless track 11 in a desired manner. Therefore,
we are not persuaded that Beckstrom's teachings regarding the placement of
a reduction transmission between a turning axle and drive wheel component
would require a change to the configuration of Heard's drive wheel 2 and
flexible track 20 as Appellants attorney arguments assert would occur. Nor
has the Examiner proposed such a redesign as Appellants allege would be
required. Ans. 21.
7
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's rationale is
"unfounded," because "Heard's vehicle V can be used in the same
environment whether on tracks or tires," and more specifically, "Heard's
vehicle V is a[ n] agricultural vehicle for use on farmland and therefore both
Heard's track apparatus and a ground-engaging wheel that the track
apparatus replaces can be used in the same environment." Appeal Br. 9-10.
Appellants further submit that
contrary to the Examiner's assertion that Beckstrom' s
transmission would "allow the speed of the vehicle with tracks
to be different than the speed of the vehicle with tires," the
transmission in the claimed track assembly may be provided to
compensate a size difference between the track assembly's drive
wheel and a conventional tire-equipped wheel that can be
replaced by the track assembly in order to maintain identical or
similar speeds whether the vehicle is on tracks or wheels.
Id. at 10 ( citing Spec. p. 34, 11. 21-29).
The prior art recognizes that
[i]t is known to replace wheels of a vehicle (and in particular an
agricultural vehicle such as a tractor or combine harvester) with
a modular track apparatus. All four wheels can be replaced with
a modular track apparatus but it is often possible for just one pair
(normally, but not exclusively, the rear pair) of wheels to be
replaced. In the case where the vehicle has front and rear driven
axles, the rolling circumference of each track apparatus must be
exactly the same as the wheel it replaces. Otherwise the speed
of the track apparatus mounted for rotation with, for example, the
rear driven axle of the vehicle will not match the speed of the
wheels on the front driven axle.
Heard, p. 1, 11. 10-17. The prior art further recognizes that it is desirable for
tracked vehicles to travel over a road at reasonable speeds, for example, by
providing high-speed hydraulic motors with gear reduction. See Dow 1 :55-
8
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
2: 1. In view of the prior art's recognition of the relationship between speed
and the rolling circumferences of track assemblies and vehicle wheels, and
further, in view of the prior art's recognition that different speeds for tracked
vehicles may be desirable according to different environments (i.e., fields
verses paved roads), which may be addressed by gear reduction, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's rationale to
incorporate a transmission to affect the speed of Heard's track assemblies, as
replacements for vehicle wheels, based on environment is unfounded.
Rather, the Examiner's rationale is factually supported by the record.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 153. Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--16, 19, 137, 138, 148, 149, 158, 162,
163, 166-178, and 182-184, which depend from independent claim 153, and
therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we also sustain
that Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--16, 19, 137, 138, 148, 149,
158, 162, 163, 166-178, and 182-184. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2--4.
Rejections II-VI
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance Zuchoski, Tucker,
Dow, Dudzinski, and Rosenboom does not remedy the deficiencies of the
Examiner's reliance on Heard and Beckstrom in the rejection of independent
claim 153. Appeal Br. 12-17; Reply Br. 4--6. Because we do not agree with
Appellants that there are any deficiencies in the Examiner's reliance on
Heard and Beckstrom in the rejection of independent claim 153 supra, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 17, 139-147, 160, 164, and 165.
9
Appeal2018-004322
Application 13/499,655
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 14--17, 19, 137-
149, 153, 158, 160, 162-178, and 182-184 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10