Ex Parte Moore

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 12, 2011

11232195 (B.P.A.I. May. 12, 2011)

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.
11/232,195 09/21/2005 Kenneth P. Moore XX 0507A 20050475 5794
70537 7590 05/13/2011
Prass LLP
2661 Riva Road
Building 1000, Suite 1044
Annapolis, MD 21401
EXAMINER
STODOLA, DANIEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH P. MOORE
____________

Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth P. Moore (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-29. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a universal motor shaft with at least
one coupling unit, i.e., pulleys, gears, cams, actuators, and mixtures thereof,
that can be removed and replaced with a second coupling unit. Spec. 2,
paras. [004] and [005] and fig. 1.
Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
21. A universal shaft and coupling assembly for connection to a
motor, comprising in an operative arrangement, an elongated shaft
with a D-flat, said shaft enabled to receive different size couplings at
the same or different axial locations along longitudinal points of said
shaft, said couplings comprising a unitary structure unit including a
coupling device and a hub to form thereby a hub-coupling unit, said
hub-coupling unit being adapted to be installed or removed from
operative contact with said shaft, said hub-coupling unit having on an
outer terminal portion of said hub a component of an adjustable
locking structure comprising locking tapered circular apertures which
are enabled to be mated and lock with tapered pins in a universal
mounting clamp, said mounting clamp being in locking contact with
said D-flat of said shaft and said hub-coupling unit, the terminal
portion of the hub-coupling nearest the D-flat are positioned said
circular locking apertures which are circularly positioned around a
circular hub, said mounting clamp enabled to prevent both hub-
coupling rotation and axial movement of said hub-coupling unit, said
shaft having a rounded configuration throughout its longitudinal
portion except for said D-flat on its outer terminal section.

Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Boogerman US 4,848,951 Jul. 18, 1989
Janatka US 5,052,842 Oct. 1, 1991
DaCunha US 6,840,701 B2 Jan. 11, 2005
Phillips US 7,150,337 B2 Dec. 19, 2006

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Phillips and Boogerman.
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phillips, Boogerman, and Janatka.
The Examiner rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Phillips, Boogerman, and DaCunha.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
The indefiniteness rejection
In the Final Rejection dated September 10, 2007, claims 21-29 were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final
Rejection 9-10. Appellant has not furnished any substantive arguments
against the Examiner’s rejection. App. Br. 9. Therefore, we summarily
Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195

4
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.

The obviousness rejection based upon Phillips and Boogerman
The Examiner found that Phillips discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 21 with the exception of an adjustable locking structure
having tapered circular apertures that mate and lock with tapered pins in a
universal mounting clamp. Ans. 5. Pointing to Figure 3 of Boogerman, the
Examiner specifically found that Boogerman discloses “an aperture 20 and a
pin 38 being tapered to align a clamp 10 with the coupling device 16.” Ans.
6. The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to replace the
pins and the apertures in Phillips with those of Boogerman et al. to align the
clamp with the coupling device.” Id.
Appellant argues that pin 38 of Boogerman “is not enabled to mate
and lock with circular tapered apertures but merely to align.” App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that:
… aligning entails mating and locking in the broad
sense. In particular, something that mates
inherently locks otherwise there is no mating.
Alternatively, one can perceive mating occurring
in the axial insertion direction and locking
occurring when all the pins are inserted thus
allowing turning of the tapered circular holes
around an axis of the shaft.
Ans. 11.
We disagree with the Examiner’s position that “aligning entails
mating and locking” because “something that mates inherently locks.” An
ordinary and customary meaning of the term “align” is “to be in or come
Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195

5
into precise adjustment or correct relative position.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed. 1997). As such, although we appreciate
the Examiner’s position that “aligning” entails “mating1,” we disagree that it
also entails “locking2.” In Boogerman, pins 38 merely align (precisely
position) coupler 10 with respect to clutch 16, but do not lock (secure) them
into position. For example, even after aligning coupler 10 and clutch 16
with pins 38, clutch 16 can still be removed from shaft 12 by merely sliding
it off the shaft. In fact, Boogerman specifically discloses additional clutch
bolts 42 for securing (locking) coupler 10 to clutch 16. Boogerman, col. 2,
ll. 16-17 and fig. 4. Hence, we agree with Appellants that Boogerman fails
to disclose, “locking tapered circular apertures which are enabled to be
mated and lock with tapered pins,” as called for by claim 21. See Reply Br.
15. As such, since neither Phillips nor Boogerman disclose, “locking
tapered circular apertures which are enabled to be mated and lock with
tapered pins,” as called for by claim 21, the Examiner’s rejection does not
have a sufficient factual basis to properly conclude that the disclosure of
Phillips in view of Boogerman render obvious the subject matter of claim
21. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claims 23-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips and Boogerman
cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

1 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “mate” is to join or
fit together.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th Ed.
1997).
2 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “locking” is “to make
fast, motionless, or inflexible.” Id.
Appeal 2009-009268
Application 11/232,195

6
(If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any
claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 22
and 29, the addition of Janatka and DaCunha, respectively, does not cure the
deficiencies of Phillips and Boogerman as described above. Accordingly,
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 22 as unpatentable over
Phillips, Boogerman, and Janatka and of claim 29 as unpatentable over
Phillips, Boogerman, and DaCunha likewise cannot be sustained.

SUMMARY
Since at least one rejection of each claim on appeal is affirmed, the
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21-29 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls