Ex Parte Mol et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13141405 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/141,405
81598 7590
Mark Ussai
SKF USA Inc.
890 Forty Foot Road
PO Box 352
Lansdale, PA 19446
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
06/22/2011 Hendrik Anne Mol
05/03/2016
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.
NL 08078 US 4993
EXAMINER
WAITS,ALANB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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 HENDRIK ANNE MOL and
JOHANNES FRANCISCUS VAN DE SANDEN
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he present invention concerns a bearing
or bearing unit provided with one or more sensors for measuring strains in
the bearing. The present invention also concerns a method of attaching the
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Aktiebolaget SKF.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
one or more sensors to the bearing by means of a heat JOmmg process."
Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A bearing unit comprising:
a bearing having a surface; and
at least one strain sensor including a support member
having a generally flat, metal support plate disposed on the
bearing surf ace, the plate having a sensing surface, a mounting
surface opposite the sensing surface and first and second lateral
ends, and a sensing element integrated on the sensing surface of
the support member metal plate, the plate being attached to the
bearing surface by a first weld seam located at the first lateral
end and a second weld seam located at the second lateral end,
wherein a portion of the mounting surf ace opposite the sensing
element is in direct contact with the bearing surface.
Appeal Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, and 19-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harting2 in view of Gilch3 and Imhof. 4
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harting in view of Gilch, Imhof, and Miyazaki. 5
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 8-15, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch.
2 Harting, US 3,272,003, iss. Sept. 13, 1966.
3 Gilch et al., US 2003/0024322 Al, pub. Feb. 6, 2003.
4 Imhof, DE 10136438 (Al), pub. Mar. 7, 2002.
5 Miyazaki et al., US 2002/0059835 Al, pub. May 23, 2002.
2
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Cavalloni. 6
V. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Subramanian. 7
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Mack. 8
VII. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Statnikov. 9
DISCUSSION10
Rejection I
With respect to this rejection, Appellants group claims 1, 4, 5, and 19
together. See Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 1 as representative of this
group. Appellants also raise separate arguments with respect to claims 20
and 2, which we address separately below.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Harting discloses a
strain sensor including a support member with a generally flat support plate
having a sensing surface and a mounting surface and in which the plate is
welded to a surface and a portion of the mounting surface opposite the strain
sensor element is in direct contact with the surface to which it is attached.
6 Cavalloni et al., US 2004/0011144 Al, pub. Jan. 22, 2004.
7 Subramanian et al., US 2006/0117562 Al, pub. June 8, 2006.
8 Mack, US 2005/0000225 Al, pub. Jan. 6, 2005.
9 Statnikov et al., US 2006/0016858 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2006.
10 To the extent Appellants raise arguments in reply to certain statements
made by the Examiner in the Answer, we have considered those arguments,
but are not persuaded of reversible error.
3
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
Final Action 2 (citing Harting Fig. 3; col. 1, 11. 45-50). The Examiner
acknowledges that Harting does not disclose attaching the device to a
bearing surface, that the support plate is metal, or that the support plate has
first and second weld seams at its lateral ends. Id.
The Examiner relies on Gilch and Imhof for the missing limitations.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Gilch discloses a sensor device with a
metal plate attached to a bearing surface via first and second weld seams at
the plate's lateral ends. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes, inter alia, that
attaching the plate in this manner makes the device "inexpensive to produce"
and is "mounted in a simple way on the component to be measured." Id.
(citing Gilch Figs. 1, 2; i-f 9). The Examiner also finds that Imhof discloses
the use of strain sensors in bearing devices "for the purpose of detection of
physical quantities and direct measurement of the mechanical stresses" and
concludes that it would have been obvious to use Harting' s device in a
bearing device as taught by Imhof. Id. at 3--4 (citing Imhofi-f 12).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of Harting, Gilch, and Imhof with respect to
claim 1 as noted above. See Final Action 2--4; see also Ans. 5-8. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first make separate arguments regarding Gilch generally.
Appeal Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellants argue that Gilch does not teach
what it is cited to teach because Gilch does not teach that weld seams in a
particular location will improve the sensor. Appeal Br. 2-3. Appellants
assert that the claims essentially require that the sensor lies flat on the
surface with weld seams at its ends whereas Gilch discloses a sensor on a
mounting plate that is mounted over a recess in a component. Id. at 3.
4
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
Appellant argues that none of the reasons provided by the Examiner for
modifying the prior art with Gilch's welds have anything to do with the
welds. Id. at 4. We disagree. We note that the rejection relies on Gilch only
insofar as Gilch teaches weld seams at the lateral ends of the plate. See Ans.
5---6. We find that Gilch teaches that using weld seams on the lateral ends of
a plate provides a simple means of attachment and so that the sensor is
attached "such that the strain of the component 1 is transferred directly to the
supporting substrate 3." Gilch i-fi-1 9, 21. We find that these teachings
provide sufficient support for the Examiner's conclusion that it would have
been obvious to use Gilch's method of attachment.
Next, Appellants assert that the rejection is in error because "Harting
shows a fatigue life gauge that operates in a manner different from Gilch's
strain sensor." Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded that the specific
purposes of Harting's device or Gilch's device are germane to the specific
combination proposed by the Examiner. Specifically, Appellants do not
adequately explain why using end weld seams is specifically related to
Gilch's purpose such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it
obvious to use weld seams in Harting's device to show, for example, that the
principle of operation would be destroyed. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
weld seams would be a suitable means of attaching a strain sensor such as
Harting's.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has misinterpreted the
claims. Appeal Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellants assert that the claimed
phrase "wherein a portion of the mounting surface opposite the sensing
element is in direct contact with the bearing surface" requires that the
5
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
mounting surface be in contact with the bearing surface directly beneath
where the sensor is located, which is not present in Gilch. Id. However, we
find this argument moot in light of the fact that the Examiner does not rely
on Gilch to teach this limitation, as discussed above.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness over Harting, Gilch, and Imhof with respect to
claim 1 without error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 19 because those claims fall with
claim 1.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, Appellants argue that "nothing in Harting,
Gilch, or Imhof suggests that a support plate ... [could] be attached ... only
by first and second weld seams." Appeal Br. 7. We disagree. Gilch states
that the "welds 11 in the form of fillet welds may also be provided," thereby
suggesting that it would be suitable to attach the sensor module by only weld
seams 10. Gilch, i-f 21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and we
sustain the rejection of claim 20 over Harting, Gilch, and Imhof.
Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, Appellants argue that Gilch "expressly
requires that a support plate not conform to a shape of an underlying
surface." Appeal Br. 7. However, the Examiner relies on Harting to show a
support plate conforming to the surface on which it is attached. See Ans.
8-9. Thus, we are not persuaded of error and we sustain the rejection of
claim 21 over Harting, Gilch, and Imhof.
6
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
Rejection III
With respect to this rejection, Appellants group claims 1, 4, 5, 8-13,
and 19 together. Appeal Br. 8. We select claim 1 as representative of this
group. Appellants present separate arguments with respect to claims 14, 15,
and 20-23. Id. at 9-10. To the extent appropriate we address those claims
separately below.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Imhof discloses a
bearing having a surface and at least one strain sensor including a support
member attached to the bearing surface. Final Action 7 (citing Imhof
Fig. 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Imhof does not disclose that the
support member is a generally flat metal support plate attached to the surface
via end weld seams as required by the claims. Id. The Examiner relies on
Gilch for these missing limitations for the same reasons identified with
respect to Rejection I, discussed above. Id. at 7-8 (citing Gilch Figs. 1, 2;
ii 9).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of Imhof and Gilch with respect to claim 1.
See Final Action 7-8; see also Ans. 5---6, 9-10. As discussed below, we are
not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
As an initial matter, to the extent Appellants rely on their general
argument regarding Gilch here (see Appeal Br. 2-5), we are not persuaded
of error for the same reasons identified above.
Additionally, Appellants argue that changing Imhof' s sensor to be
rectangular or to weld the circular sensor at opposed portions would render it
7
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 8. In support,
Appellants argue:
Imhof' s sensor 7 includes sensing elements or resistors
arranged in a square. The machine translation of Imhof
suggests that these elements measure forces in two directions:
an axial direction and a tangential direction. In view of the
need to sense forces in two directions, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have no reason to attach this sensor only at its
ends as is done in Gilch. Attaching wafer 62 at diametrically
opposed portions would appear to make Imhof' s sensor
substantially more sensitive to forces in one direction than in
the other. Nothing in the record provides any reason to do this.
Nothing about this change will make Imhof more sensitive, less
expensive, etc. as stated in the Office Action. Gilch does not
suggest any change to Imhof that would result in the invention
of claim 1, and claim 1 is submitted to be allowable over Imhof
and Gilch for this reason.
Id. at 8-9. We are not persuaded of error for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Ans. 9. Specifically, we agree this argument represents a
speculative opm10n of Appellants that is not supported by any evidence in
the record before us. Further, to the extent Appellants are reasserting their
argument regarding the motivation to combine Gilch with the prior art
discussed previously, we are unpersuaded for the same reasons identified
above.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness over Imhof and Gilch with respect to claim 1
without error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8-13, and 19 because those claims fall
with claim 1.
8
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
Claims 14, 15, and 20-23
With respect to claims 14, 15, and 20-23, Appellants raise arguments
that we have previously addressed and found unpersuasive including
arguments related to the support plate conforming to the bearing surface and
the use of only two end weld seams. See Appeal Br. 9--23. We are not
persuaded here for similar reasons, i.e., Gilch suggests using only two end
weld seams and the Examiner relies on Imhof, not Gilch, to show a support
member that conforms to the bearing surface. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error and we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 20-23.
Rejections II and IV-VII
Appellants do not raise separate arguments with respect to the
remaining rejections. Accordingly, we sustain those rejections for the same
reasons provided above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we find as follows.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 19--21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harting in view of Gilch and Imhof.
We affirm the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harting in view of Gilch, Imhof, and Miyazaki.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8-15, and 19-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch.
We affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Cavalloni.
We affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Subramanian.
9
Appeal2014-003723
Application 13/141,405
We affirm the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Mack.
We affirm the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imhof in view of Gilch and Statnikov.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10