Ex Parte Lippert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13788535 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
13/788,535 03/07/2013 Robert Scott Lippert 83253829 8998
28395 7590 06/26/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER HLAVKA, DAVID J
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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 ROBERT SCOTT LIPPERT and REID ALAN BALDWIN1
Appeal 2016-004527
Application 13/788,535
Technology Center 3600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 14—19, of pending claims 1—19 and
24—26. Claims 1—13 and 24—26 are allowed and claims 20—23 are canceled.
See Final Act. 1—2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Applicant is Ford Global Technologies, which is also identified by the
Appellants as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-004527
Application 13/788,535
The present invention relates generally to a transmission gearing
arrangement. See Abstract.
Claim 14 is illustrative:
14. A transmission comprising:
first, second, and third shafts;
an input shaft;
a first brake configured to selectively hold the first shaft
against rotation;
a first clutch configured to selectively couple the first
shaft to the input shaft;
a second clutch configured to selectively couple the first
shaft to the second shaft; and
a third clutch configured to selectively couple the first
shaft to the third shaft.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 14—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gumpoltsberger (US 2011/0045943 Al, Feb. 24, 2011).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Gumpoltsberger discloses
a third clutch configured to selectively couple the first shaft to the third
shaft, as set forth in claim 14?
Appellants contend that their Specification defines two rotating
elements as being selectively coupled “when the shift element constrains
them to rotate as a unit whenever it is fully engaged” (App. Br. 3 (emphasis
2
Appeal 2016-004527
Application 13/788,535
added and omitted) (citing Spec. 19); see also Spec. 110) and the “clutch 68
of Gumpoltsberger selectively couples shaft 6 to shaft 8 rather than
selectively coupling shaft 3 to shaft 8 as asserted by the Examiner” (App. Br.
3). Appellants further contend that “the Examiner’s interpretation of the
phrase ‘rotate as a unit’ within that definition is unreasonably broad . . . The
Examiner’s construction reads out the first portion of the definition of
‘selectively coupled’” (id. at 4). We agree with Appellants.
In response, the Examiner finds in Gumpoltsberger’s Fig. 1
elements 3 and 8 are constrained to rotate as a unit whenever
clutch 68 is engaged ... In these instances (i.e., reverse and gear
9), brake 03 is engaged as well as clutch 68, which restricts
movement of element 3, but 3 is still engaged with 8 to rotate as
a unit via clutch 68.
(Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner further finds that Appellants’
definition “does not restrict the unit to only two always rotating elements”
(id.) and “[t]he definition does not require elements 8 and 3 themselves to be
rotating at all times or even during shift element engagement” (id. at 7). We
find the Examiner’s interpretation unavailing.
First, we note, as a matter of claim construction, Appellants’
Specification states that “two rotating elements are selectively coupled by a
shift element when the shift element constrains them to rotate as a unit
whenever it is fully engaged” (Spec. 110). In other words, “selectively
coupled” requires a shift element to constrain two rotating elements to rotate
as a unit when fully engaged. We find that rotating “as a unit” as described
in the Specification denotes rotating “at the same time.” Here, the Examiner
relies upon Gumpoltsberger’s elements 3 and 8 as the claimed first and third
shaft, respectively, and claim 14 requires selectively coupling the first to the
third shaft, i.e., rotating the first and third shaft as a unit.
3
Appeal 2016-004527
Application 13/788,535
Thus, we agree with Appellants that “[n]o reasonable interpretation of
‘rotate as a unit’ encompasses a situation in which one component rotates
with positive speed and the other component is stationary” (App. Br. 4).
Given that the Examiner concedes that in Gumpoltsberger the movement of
element 3 is restricted when engaged with element 8 via clutch 68 (see Ans.
5), we find unavailing the Examiner’s interpretation that elements 3 and 8 of
Gumpoltsberger are rotating as a unit. The Examiner has constructed “a
unit” consisting of Gumpoltsberger’s elements 3 and 8 in combination with
the ring of PI, planets of PI, and carrier PI, (see id. at 7) and insists that
“[t]he definition does not require elements 8 and 3 themselves to be rotating
at all times or even during shift element engagement” (id. ). However, we
disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation because claim 14 requires
Gumpoltsberger’s elements 3 and 8 to be selectively coupled, i.e., to rotate
as a unit, rather than to rotate at all times, as suggested by the Examiner.
Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s possible interpretation that
Gumpoltsberger’s elements 3 and 8 merely have to be contained in the same
unit with additional components having rotation during engagement, but
elements 3 and 8 themselves do not have to rotate as a unit, as this is
contrary to claim language.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Gumpoltsberger
discloses selectively coupling the first shaft to the third shaft, as recited in
independent claim 14. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 14—19.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14—19 is reversed.
REVERSED
4