Ex Parte Meinhard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 13, 2007

10847748 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 13, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROLF MEINHARD and MATTHIAS SCHNEIDER
____________

Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 13, 2007
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and ANTON W.
FETTING Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rolf Meinhard and Matthias Schneider (Appellants) originally
appealed under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 18. The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Beneton and of claims 8-10 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Beneton in view of Doman
(Ans. 2, ¶ 6). Accordingly, this appeal involves only claims 1-7 and 11-16.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed towards a drive train including an
engine (2), a transmission (4), and a clutch assembly (3, 103) for
transmitting torque between the engine (2) and the transmission (4) (Spec. 6,
¶ 26 and fig. 1). The clutch assembly (103) includes two friction clutches
(173, 174) for connecting an input drive shaft (151) to at least one output
shaft (input transmission shafts 152, 153) and a clutch actuating mechanism
(185) for axially moving the two friction clutches (173, 174) (Spec. 7-8, ¶¶
36 and 38 and fig. 2). The clutch assembly (103) is furthermore supported
by an axially flexible disk part (207), an antifriction bearing (187), and a
screw (211) connecting the axially flexible disk part (207) to the
transmission housing (206) (Spec. 10, ¶ 44 and fig. 2).
Claim 1, the only independent claim in the instant appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A drive train comprising:
an engine;
a transmission having a transmission housing;
at least one input shaft; and
a clutch assembly selectable for transmitting torque
between the engine and the transmission, the clutch assembly
including at least one friction clutch, the clutch assembly being
supported on the transmission housing so that the clutch
assembly is radially fixed and displaceable in an axially limited
manner.

2
Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Beneton et al. US 6,634,477 B2 Oct. 21, 2003

Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 7 and 11 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Beneton.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed November 2, 2006). Appellants present opposing
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed August 9, 2006) and the Reply Brief
(filed December 7, 2006).

OPINION
Appellants argue all the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
together as a group. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the representative claim to
decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection, with claims 2 through 7 and
11 through 16 standing or falling with claim 1.
Appellants’ argument as to why Beneton does not anticipate claim 1 is
that Beneton does not disclose a clutch assembly that is supported on the
transmission housing such that the clutch assembly is (1) radially fixed; and
(2) displaceable in an axially limited manner (App. Br. 3 and Reply Br. 2).
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
3
Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748

reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Examiner finds that Figures 1 and 2 of Beneton disclose a drive
train including an engine (2), a transmission (4) having a transmission
housing (206), a clutch assembly (103) including at least one friction clutch
(171, 172), a support antifriction bearing (187), an actuating mechanism
(185), and an axially flexible disk part (207) (Ans. 3).
With regard to Appellants’ first argument, we agree with the
Examiner that the clutch assembly is supported on the transmission housing.
“[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that
the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). Being “supported” means “to hold up or serve as a foundation or
prop for” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1184 (Tenth Ed.
1997)). The term “fixed” is used to show that an object is “securely placed
or fastened…immobile” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 441
(Tenth Ed. 1997)). Hence, the limitation of the clutch assembly being
“supported” on the transmission housing does not require that the clutch
assembly be “fixed” on the transmission housing with the aid of a screw or
fastener as Appellants’ arguments seem to imply. As such, we find that the
clutch assembly of Beneton is “supported” on the transmission housing
(206) by the axially flexible disk part (207), the antifriction bearing (187),
the non-rotatable member (203), and the connection (208) (col. 9, ll. 5-27 of
Beneton). Furthermore, from Figure 2 of Beneton, it appears to us that the
radial extension of connection (208) and its engagement with transmission
4
Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748

housing (206) in conjunction with the antifriction bearing (187) and non-
rotatable member (203) radially fixes (securely places) the clutch assembly.
While Appellants correctly point out that Beneton’s arrangement achieves
centering (App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 2), this in no way demonstrates that
Beneton’s clutch assembly is not radially fixed relative to the transmission
housing. In particular, the clutch assembly of Beneton cannot move radially
because connection (208) includes a circular array of male components that
are engaged with transmission housing (206) (col. 9, ll. 22-32 of Beneton),
thereby preventing radial movement in all radial directions. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the clutch assembly of Beneton is radially
fixed.
With regard to Appellants’ second argument, we find that the clutch
actuating mechanism (185) allows for axial motion of the two friction
clutches (171, 172). Specifically, actuating means (188) and (194) of
actuating mechanism (185) allows axial motion of the two friction clutches
(171, 172) (col. 7, ll. 27-53 of Beneton). Otherwise, if axial displacement of
the friction clutches in Beneton were not possible, as Appellants argue,
clutch assembly (103) would not be able to selectively transmit torque
between the engine (2) and the transmission (4), and hence the invention of
Beneton would not function as described. Hence, we agree with the
Examiner that the clutch assembly of Beneton is displaceable in an axially
limited manner.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Beneton. The
rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 11 through 16 is sustained.

5
Appeal 2007-1794
Application 10/847,748

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7 and 11
through 16 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)(1)(iv) (2006).

AFFIRMED

JRG

WILLIAM C. GEHRIS
DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC
485 SEVENTH AVENUE, 14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10018
6