Ex Parte Kyle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 2016

13287414 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/287,414 11/02/2011
119563 7590 09/07/2016
Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Goodyear)
2700 Carew Tower
441 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marc Kyle
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.
GTRC-167US 5561
EXAMINER
MCMAHON, MATTHEW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2016 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC KYLE 1
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marc Kyle ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is The Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns keys and keyways for coupling components
for transmission of torque. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal, and recites:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a motor including a drive shaft, the drive shaft
including a keyway having a keyway bottom surface extending
along a longitudinal direction, the keyway bottom surface
including a substantially planar portion and an arcuate ramp
portion;
a driven member coupled to the drive shaft for rotation
therewith; and a key configured to seat in the keyway to
operatively couple the motor and the driven member, the key
including opposed side surfaces and a bottom surface extending
between the opposed side surfaces and having a substantially
planar segment and a curved surface segment, the curved surface
segment having rounded edges where it intersects the opposed
side surfaces;
wherein when the key is seated in the keyway, the
bottom surface of the key is coextensive with the keyway bottom
surface along the longitudinal direction such that the curved
surface segment engages the arcuate ramp portion and the
substantially planar segment engages the substantially planar
portion.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Independent claim 13
recites a keyway having a ramp surface and a key having a curved surface,
"wherein the curved surface fits into the ramp surface." Id. at 16 (Claims
App.).
2
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phillips (US 5,400,885, iss. Mar. 28, 1995)
and Blue (US 3,920,343, iss. Nov. 18, 1975).
II. Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phillips, Blue, and Reid (US 51,218, iss.
Nov. 28, 1865).
III. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Irby
(US 7,018, 156 B2, iss. Mar. 28, 2006), Phillips, Blue, and Reid.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Phillips and Blue- Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-13
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 as a group. Appeal Br. 7-
12. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2, 9, 11, and 12 stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Phillips discloses, inter alia, keyway 90 and
key 170. Final Act. 3 (citing Phillips, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner finds that
keyway 90 includes a bottom surface having ramp portion 95, and finds that
key 170 includes a corresponding bottom surface having ramped surface
segment 185. Id. The Examiner finds that when key 170 is seated in
keyway 90, the key's ramped surface segment engages the keyway's ramp
portion 95 in a "'sled runner' type configuration." Id. (citing Phillips, 3:41-
56, 4:54--5:8).
The Examiner finds that Phillips fails to disclose that the keyway's
ramp portion is arcuate and that the key's ramped surface segment is curved.
3
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Blue teaches a key and keyway
arrangement in which keyway 3 includes ramp portion 7, which has an
arcuate or "dished" shape to reduce stress concentrations in the keyway, as
compared to "sled runner" type configurations. Id. (citing Blue, 2:35---62,
Figs. 1-2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ramp portion of Phillips' s
keyway to include an arcuate shape, as taught by Blue, to reduce keyway
stress concentrations. Id. The Examiner also concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ramped
surface segment of Phillips' s key to include a curved shape, "in order to
mate with the shape of the keyway, since the key (170) of Phillips is
designed to mate with the keyway (90; see Col. 3 lines 49-52 and Col. 4
lines 64---67)." Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that "spacing" is present between Blue's key and
keyway, such that portions of the key and keyway are "out of contact."
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing Blue, 4:14--17, 25-32, Figs. 2-3).
Appellant contends that the Examiner's rationale for the proposed
combination is based on hindsight and fails to address Blue's spacing;
accordingly, Appellant contends that the Examiner "does not provide a
proper reason for making a combination." Id. at 9-10; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also contends, "Blue does not teach, or even suggest, that a key
should be in contact with a curved portion of a keyway," and the Examiner's
conclusion that "one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it
would be desirable to maintain [a] mating relationship" is "merely
conclusory, and is specifically contradicted by Blue." Id. at 10-11; Reply
4
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
Br. 4--5. Finally, Appellant contends that even if modified as proposed by
the Examiner, "the combined teachings of Phillips and Blue would include a
key that is spaced from and out of contact with a curved portion of a
keyway." Id. at 11.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner states that the rejection relies
on Phillips as disclosing a "sled runner" key and keyway configuration, "in
which the lower surface of the key engages the entire upper surface of the
keyway, including the ramp portion" and in which "the tapered section 185
of the shaft key 170 is designed to mate with the tapered portion 95 of the
shaft keyway 90." Ans. 3 (citing Phillips, 3:41-56, 4:61---67, Fig. 1). The
Examiner states that Blue is relied upon to teach only "the advantage of a
keyway having an arcuate, or 'dished,' shape in order to reduce stress
concentrations in the keyway." Id. at 4 (citing Blue, 2:35---62). The
Examiner states that the rejection includes proper reasoning and motivation,
namely, to reduce stress concentrations. Id. Finally, in response to
Appellant's allegations regarding Blue's disclosed spacing, the Examiner
finds that "Blue does not explicitly teach that only this configuration can
reduce stress concentration," but rather teaches that "adding a concave
curvature to the keyway will reduce stress concentrations as compared to,
for example, a sled[]runner type" configuration. Id. at 4--5 (citing Blue,
2:50---63, 3:9-26).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments. As an initial matter,
the "spacing" disclosed by Blue, and upon which Appellant's arguments
rely, is not a necessary feature of Blue's keyway arrangement. Specifically,
Blue discloses that keyway 3, with arcuate ramp portion 7, may be utilized
5
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
with "conventional" keys. Blue, 3 :4 7-51. In such an arrangement, Blue
discloses that stress concentrations are reduced. Id.; see also id. at 2:35---62.
Although Blue also discloses that "larger reductions in stress concentrations
can be achieved if the keyway is used in combination with a specially
designed key 9," in which the "spacing" discussed by Appellant is present,
this "spacing" is not disclosed as present when keyway 3 is used with a
"conventional" key. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
errs in failing to address Blue's "spacing," because the Examiner's rejection
does not rely on the "specially designed key" disclosed by Blue.
Furthermore, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner's
findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Examiner's finding that Phillips
discloses a key and keyway with mating ramped portions is supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 3; Phillips, 3:49-52. The Examiner's
finding that Blue discloses a keyway with an arcuate ramp portion is also
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 4; Blue, 2:38--46.
Additionally, we agree that the Examiner provides proper reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusions of obviousness. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner's
conclusion that it would have been obvious to have provided the ramped
portion of Phillips' s keyway with an arcuate shape, as taught by Blue, to
reduce stress concentrations is explicitly supported by Blue's disclosure.
Final Act. 4; Blue, 2:35---62. The Examiner's subsequent conclusion that it
would have been obvious to have also provided the ramped surface segment
of Phillips' s key with a curved shape, to properly mate with the modified
6
Appeal2014-006112
Application 13/287,414
keyway, is also supported by the evidence. Final Act. 4; Phillips, 3:49-52,
4:64---67. Indeed, in light of Phillips's explicit statement that the ramped
portions of the key and keyway "mate," we disagree with Appellant's
argument that the Examiner's reasoning is "merely conclusory." Appeal Br.
10-11; Reply Br. 4--5.
With respect to claim 13, Appellant presents the same arguments
presented and discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. For the
same reasons, we find those arguments equally unpersuasive with respect to
claim 13.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11,
and 12.
Additional Obviousness Grounds - Claims 3--8, 10, and 14-18
Appellant does not present separate argument directed to the
rejections of dependent claims 3-8, 10, and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Phillips and Blue, in further combination with Reid
(claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 14--18) or Reid and Irby (claim 6). Appeal Br. 7.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-8, 10,
and 14--18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
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).
AFFIRMED
7