Ex Parte Martinez

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2013

11670156 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/670,156 02/01/2007 Monica Gil Martinez 09561-US 6604
30689 7590 09/19/2013
DEERE & COMPANY
ONE JOHN DEERE PLACE
MOLINE, IL 61265
EXAMINER
REESE, ROBERT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MONICA GIL MARTINEZ
____________

Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and CARL M.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Monica Gil Martinez (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. In a gearbox arrangement including a housing,
a chamber enclosed by said housing, a first shaft
supported in a first pair of bearings in the gearbox
housing for rotation about a first axis of rotation,
with one of said first pair of bearings being located
in a first opening in the housing, a stepped
cylindrical cavity provided in said first shaft in
concentric relationship to a second axis of rotation
disposed in parallel eccentric relationship to said
first axis of rotation and with an end of said cavity
defining an opening at one end of said first shaft, a
second shaft being supported in a second pair of
bearings provided in said cavity, with said second
shaft being provided with at least one gear tooth
area and being provided with an end region
projecting axially from said cavity, and a third
shaft supported in a third pair of bearings
respectively provided in second and third openings
in said gearbox housing, for rotation about a third
axis of rotation which is angled relative to a plane
lying on said first axis of rotation, the
improvement comprising:
said gearbox arrangement further including
a plate fixed to said first shaft and being located
for preventing axial movement of said second
shaft;
Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

3
said plate containing a fourth opening in
which is received said end region of said second
shaft; and
a plurality of sealing devices being provided
for respectively sealing said first, second and third
openings in said housing and said fourth opening
in said plate being configured in such a way that an
escape of lubricant from said gearbox housing
between the gearbox housing and the first and third
shafts, and between the plate and second shaft is
prevented.
PRIOR ART

Boone US 4,402,174 Sep. 6, 1983
McCredie US 6,216,429 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Schumacher US 6,273,214 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Knox US 2005/0188784 A1 Sep. 1, 2005

GROUNDS OF REJECTION

1. Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schumacher and Knox.
2. Claims 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schumacher, Knox, Boone and McCredie.
DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL
AS TO CLAIMS 14-17
The Notice of Appeal filed December 15, 2010 states that the
Appellant “hereby appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
[now the Patent Trial and Appeal Board] from the last decision of the
examiner.” This last decision of the Examiner included the rejection of
claims 14-17. See Final Rejection mailed Sep. 21, 2010. The Appeal Brief
Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

4
states that the grounds of rejection to be reviewed are whether “[c]laims 1-
13 are unpatentable under 35 USC 103(a) over US Patent 6,273,214 to
Schumacher in view of US Published Patent Application 2005/0188784
to Knox et al.” App. Br. 3. The Appeal Brief does not include any
argument addressed to the rejection of claims 14-17. Since the Appellant’s
submission unequivocally indicates she does not intend to pursue an appeal
from the rejection of claims 14-17, we DISMISS the appeal as to those
claims. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential). We note that § 1215.03 of the Manuel of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) states that a “withdrawal of the appeal as to some of the
claims on appeal operates as an authorization to cancel those claims from the
application.”
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1-13 as a group. See Br. 3-5. We select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-13 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Shumacher discloses every element of
independent claim 1 except for:
a plurality of sealing devices being provided for
respectively sealing said first, second and third
openings in said housing and said fourth opening
in said plate being configured in such a way that an
escape of lubricant from said gearbox housing
between the gearbox housing and the first and third
shafts, and between the plate and second shaft is
prevented.
Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that “Knox et al. discloses a serviceable
seal for a transfer case which includes a sealing device (34) for sealing [an]
opening in a housing around a rotating shaft (18).” Id. Based on these
Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

5
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
modify Schumacher's gear arrangement with the shaft seals of Knox et al. as
a way to prevent the loss of lubricant from the gear box, and to shield
against contaminants from the outside of the gear box (Knox et al. column 3,
lines 29 to 34).” Id.
Appellant argues that “[i]t is [] unlikely, that a person skilled in the art
will come to a respective solution for the proposed object of the invention
just by combining the teachings of the cited prior art. The skills and efforts
or ambitions are limited to his knowledge in this technical field.” Br. 3.
Appellant opines that:
Even if he/she would have the idea of screwing a
plate to the housing for axial securing of the
second axle, it would be an increased effort, since
the plate must have been provided with a special
shape, having an eccentric opening for the second
axle. This would rather lead the person skilled in
the art to use other known methods and solutions,
which are easier to comply, e.g. by use of a snap-
ring. Even if the person skilled in the art would
choose this way of increased effort, it would be
very questionable if he/she would not still locate
the radial sealing on the second axle rather than on
the plate in order to not increase manufacturing
efforts by having to form a seat for the seal on the
eccentric opening on the plate. Consequently,
several thoughts would be necessary and some
additional visional input has to be provided by the
person skilled in order to foresee a technical
secondary advantage of the invention, which is not
obvious on the first glance to justify the increased
manufacturing efforts. All in all, such an
approach by far exceeds the simple and obvious
action of just applying the teachings of the cited
references and common know-how.
Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

6
Br. 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s arguments are not well taken. The Supreme Court
instructs us that “a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007). The Supreme Court further instructs us that “[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Rather than dispute the Examiner’s findings or explain why the proposed
combination would not yield predictable results, Appellant contends that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not put forth the effort required to combine
the prior art teachings. Moreover, Appellant provides no evidence in
support of these contentions. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive.
Appellant further argues that “[t]he element (15) shown by
Schumacher is not comparable to the plate of the present invention and
cannot be identified as such, since there is no function of fixing, sealing
and/or mounting the shaft with this element.” Br. 5. In response to this
argument, the Examiner determines that “claim 1 only requires that the plate
be fixed to said first shaft, and provides the location.” Ans. 11. The
Examiner finds that “[e]lement 15 of the Schumacher reference meets the
requirements by providing element 15 as an integral part of the shaft, thus
fixing that element to the shaft, and it is in the required location (see figure 1
of Schumacher).” Id. We agree and note that Schumacher’s rotor 15
prevents axial movement of the second shaft, that Schumacher is not relied
upon for the sealing devices claimed and that “mounting” is not recited in
independent claim 1. See App. Br. 6. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is
Appeal 2011-011108
Application 11/670,156

7
not persuasive.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2-13 that fall therewith.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 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).

AFFIRMED

rvb