Ex parte Mayerjak

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 21, 1998

08030806 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 12, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT J. MAYERJAK
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,8061
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FRANKFORT, STAAB and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14-21, which are all
the claims pending in the application. Claim 13 has been
canceled. Appellant’s invention is directed to a flexible
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
2
coupling for connecting driving and driven rotary members. Claim
1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and recites:
1. A flexible coupling for connecting driving and
driven rotary members the rotational axes of which may be
slightly misaligned relative to one another, said coupling
comprising a first connecting means for connecting said coupling
to said driving member, a second connecting means for connecting
said coupling to said driven member, and at least one rectangular
flex frame connected between said first connecting means and said
second connecting means, said at least one flex frame having four
legs consisting of two short legs generally identical and
parallel to each other and two long legs longer than said short
legs which long legs are generally identical and parallel to each
other and generally perpendicular to said short legs, said legs
of said at least one flex frame having cross sections of such
dimensions that the stiffness of said coupling with respect to a
bending moment applied between said first connecting means and
said second connecting means in a plane containing said
rotational axes of said driving and driven members is
substantially uniform for all angles of said plane about said
rotational axis of said driving member.

THE REFERENCES
The following references were relied on by the
examiner:
Mayerjak 3,481,158 Dec. 2, 1969
Wirth 4,392,837 Jul. 12, 1983
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wirth.
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
3
Claims 1 and 7-12 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mayerjak.
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellant and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to the Appellant’s Brief (Paper No.
9) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 11) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Appellant’s claimed subject matter is a flexible
coupling for connecting a driving and a driven rotary member.
The coupling includes a first connecting means for connecting the
coupling to the driving member and a second connecting means for
connecting the coupling to the driven member. There is also
included a rectangular flex frame connected between the first
connecting means and the second connecting means which includes
four legs, which in accordance with claim 1 from which all of the
other claims depend have:
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
4
cross sections of such dimensions that the
stiffness of said coupling with respect to a
bending moment applied between said first
connecting means and said second connecting
means in a plane containing said rotational
axes of said driving and driven members is
substantially uniform for all angles of said
plane about said rotational axis of said
driving member.
Appellant’s specification teaches that in prior art flex frames
as the input shaft was rotated the stiffness exhibited by the
flex frame to the deflection imposed on it varied with the
rotational angle of the coupling and that such variation caused
the coupling to produce cyclic excitations which lead to shaking
or vibration (Specification at pages 2-3 and 8). To solve this
problem, in appellant’s flex frame, the stiffness of each
individual flex frame is such that if the driving end connecting
means is fixed, a given bending moment applied to the driven end
connecting means will angularly deflect the axes by the same or
near the same amount regardless of the angular direction of the
bending moment applied to the connecting means.
Appellant has disclosed several ways to accomplish this
goal. In a first embodiment, the coupling may be an iso-
stiffness frame in which the frame exhibits nearly uniform
stiffness throughout a complete revolution of the coupling when
flexed by the angular misalignment between the driving and driven
shafts (Specification at page 10). In other embodiments, the
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
5
coupling includes flex frames of at least two different types
with different stiffnesses which compensate one another
(Specification at pages 10-12). Appellant’s further teach that
the dimensions for the frames necessary to meet the above
criteria can be determined by trial and error or by numerical
stress analysis
We turn first to the 102(b) rejection based on Wirth.
The factual determination of anticipation requires the disclosure
in a single reference of every element of the claimed invention.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Diversitech
Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 7 USPQ2d 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 1988); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Alco Standard Corp. v. TVA,
808 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Marshall,
578 F.2d 301, 198 USPQ 344 (CCPA 1978); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d
586, 172 USPQ 524 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to identify wherein each and every facet of the
claimed invention is disclosed in the applied reference.
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730
F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, in order
for the examiner to establish a prima facie case of anticipation
based on Wirth, the examiner is obliged to point out where Wirth
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
6
discloses a flex frame with cross section dimensions which meet
the stiffness criteria recited in claim 1.
The appellant in the specification at page 8 states
that as the driving member was rotated the stiffness exhibited by
a Wirth flex frame to the defection imposed on it varied with the
rotational angle of the coupling. In fact, appellant states that
a coupling made of identical rectangular flex frames with long
legs thinner than short legs as disclosed in Wirth is more non-
uniform than a similar coupling made of four identical flex
flames with long and short legs of equal thickness.
(Specification at pages 8-9). The examiner has not advanced any
technical reasons why this analysis of the appellant is in error.
The examiner, in explaining the rejection under 35 USC
§ 102(b) of claims 1-6 and 18-21 as being anticipated by Wirth
states that:
Since Wirth includes all of the structure
that has been set forth in the claims, the
required ratios of stiffness of the members
are also inherently met since no specific
structure has been set forth that defines how
these stiffness are defined.
We do not agree that the structure set forth that defines the
stiffness is not defined. The appellant on pages 9 through 32 of
his specification defines the structure and how the dimensions
are determined.
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
7
In addition, in relying upon the theory of inherency,
the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
teachings of the applied prior art. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981); In re
Wilding, 535 F.2d 631, 190 USPQ 59 (CCPA 1976); Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 40 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1939).
The examiner has not provided any such technical
reasoning. As appellant’s reasoning appears to be sound and the
examiner has not explained how it is in error, we conclude that
the examiner has not discharged his initial burden and thus we
will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 and
claims 2-6 and 18-21 dependent therefrom.
We turn next to the 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 7-12
and 14-17 as anticipated by Mayerjak. This rejection also rest
on the examiner’s findings of inherency in the Mayerjak reference
of a flex frame having a cross section of such dimension as to
meet the stiffness criteria recited in claim 1. The appellant
states in the specification that a Mayerjak flex frame which has
four legs of the same thickness with one set being longer than
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
8
the other does not have cross section dimensions which meet the
stiffness criteria recited in claim 1 (See specification at page
6 and pages 8-9). The examiner has, as with the 102(b) rejection
based on Wirth, relied on inherency without providing any
technical reasoning why (1) the stiffness criteria of claim 1
necessarily flows from the teachings of Mayerjak or (2) the
appellant’s reasoning set out in the specification as it relates
to Mayerjak is incorrect. As we are of the opinion that
appellant’s reasoning appears to be correct and the examiner has
not provided reasoning as to why it is not, we conclude that the
examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing
anticipation based on inherency. Therefore, we will not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 or claims 7-12 and
14-17 dependent therefrom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
9
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
McCormick, Paulding & Huber
Cityplace II
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4102
Appeal No. 96-0162
Application 08/030,806
10