Ex Parte Nagaya

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

10530180 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GO NAGAYA
____________

Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Go Nagaya (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on January 10, 2013.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to an in-wheel motor system
for a steering wheel for use in a vehicle having direct drive wheels as
steering wheels.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An in-wheel motor system for mounting a direct drive
motor to a wheel, comprising
a first knuckle which is connected to an upper suspension
arm, a lower suspension arm and a non-rotary side of the direct
drive motor, and is locked in a steering direction; and
a second knuckle which is connected to a steering rod
and to the first knuckle in such a manner that the second
knuckle turns on a king pin axis in the steering direction and is
fitted with a brake unit and the wheel.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Tenney US 1,780,370 Nov. 4, 1930
Herreshoff US 2,635,704 Apr. 21, 1953
Nelson US 3,468,389 Sep. 23, 1969
Baker US 3,472,331 Oct. 14, 1969
Wahlmark US 3,818,721 Jun. 25, 1974
Miki US 4,504,099 Mar. 12, 1985
Mazziotti US 4,541,819 Sep. 17, 1985
Iizuka US 5,224,563 Jul. 6, 1993
Kudo US 5,791,995 Aug. 11, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Baker and Iizuka.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

3
2. Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker, Iizuka, and Tenney.
3. Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker, Iizuka, and Nelson.
4. Claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker, Iizuka, Tenney, and Nelson.1
ISSUES
Appellant argues that “Baker discloses only one knuckle (a spindle
knuckle) and does not disclose and suggest the first knuckle according to the
present invention.” App. Br. 10-11. See also App. Br. 13 (“Baker does not
teach or suggest a first knuckle which is connected to an upper and lower
suspension arm” and “Baker does not disclose or suggest a knuckle that is
divided into two parts”).
In each of the rejections of claim 1, the Examiner determined that
Baker discloses:
an arrangement for the driving of a steerable wheel (42)
including a first knuckle (proximate 122) which does not turn
and is locked in a steering direction (e.g., at least through the
connection at 124, 132, 134), and which is connected to an
upper suspension arm (22), a lower suspension arm (24) and to
a non-rotating vehicle portion and . . . a second knuckle (19, 21,
82, 85) which is steerable, pivotally mounted with respect to the
first knuckle about a king pin axis (Y) . . . .

1 According to the Examiner, “[t]he references to Herreshoff, Wahlmark,
Miki et al., Mazziotti, and Kudo et al. have been relied upon as documentary
evidence to support assertions by the examiner that certain features are old
and well known.” Ans. 8. See also Ans. 9, 11-12.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

4
Ans. 4-5. The rejections of dependent claims 2-6 also rely on the
Examiner’s determination that Baker discloses a first knuckle as called for in
independent claim 1. Ans. 6-7.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Baker discloses “a first
knuckle” as called for in independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
The rejection states that Baker discloses “a first knuckle (proximate
122).” Ans. 4. We cannot discern from this vague finding exactly what
portion of Baker’s arrangement the Examiner determined corresponds to the
claimed “first knuckle.” It appears from the rejection that the Examiner does
not consider the king pin 122 itself to be the first knuckle; rather the
Examiner determined that a structure in Baker’s arrangement located
“proximate” king pin 122 corresponds to the “first knuckle.”2 We examined
Baker’s arrangement, and in particular, the portions of the arrangement
located proximate king pin 122, and could not discern any portions that
appear to correspond to the “first knuckle” of claim 1.
Baker discloses a pivot means for mounting a driven axle for
horizontal movement with respect to a driver axle. Baker, col. 1, ll. 18-20.
Baker discloses:

2 If the Examiner considered king pin 122 to correspond to the claimed “first
knuckle,” we disagree. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 5, n.1) that a
king pin is not a knuckle. Further, king pin 122 is located only in bore 124
of upper yoke arm 22 and is not connected to lower yoke arm 24 as called
for in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

5
This pivot means comprises a yoke arm arrangement which
insures substantially equal loading to both the upper and lower
yoke and bracket arms and a resilient deformable dampening
and bearing means disposed between the king pin bearings and
the yoke arms to suppress vibration and provide anti-shimmy
characteristics to the steering drive axle assembly.
Baker, col. 1, ll. 20-27.
In particular, Baker discloses a steering drive axle assembly 10
including an axle housing 12 secured to a suspension yoke 14 through both
of which extends a shaft extension 16 of the driving axle. Baker, col. 3,
ll. 1-5. The suspension yoke 14 includes upper and lower yoke arms 22 and
24. Baker, col. 3, ll. 18-19. A universal joint 26 is disposed between the
yoke arms 22 and 24 for easy connection to a driven axle shaft 28. Baker,
col. 3, ll. 20-23. The shaft 28 is rotationally supported by bearings 30
disposed in a wheel bearing spindle 32. Baker, col. 3, ll. 23-25.
A pair of bracket arms 80 and 82 formed by a wheel yoke
or wheel spindle knuckle 81, extend axially towards the driving
axle shaft extension 16 and are fixed for rotation with the wheel
bearing spindle 32. These bracket arms provide for seating of a
pair of king pin bearings assemblies 19 and 21, respectively, for
pivotal attachment of the wheel bearing spindle 32 to the axle
housing 12.
Baker, col. 4, ll. 26-32. “The wheel yoke 81 is fixed for rotational
movement with the wheel bearing spindle 32 . . . .” Baker, col. 4, ll. 41-43.3

3 The Examiner determined that the wheel spindle knuckle 81, including
bracket arms 80 and 82, and the king pin bearings assemblies 19 and 21
correspond to the “second knuckle” which is steerable and pivotally
mounted with respect to the first knuckle about a king pin axis (Y). Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

6
“[A] bore 124 in the upper yoke arm 22 is threaded for receipt of a
bushing 126, the said bushing having threads 128 engaged with the threads
in the bore 124.” Baker, col. 5, ll. 35-38.
A nut 132 which is screwed on a threaded portion 134 of the
king pin 122 pulls the assemblage of the king pin 122, bushing
126 and upper yoke arm 22 tightly together. By this
arrangement the nut 132 draws the king pin 122 up tight against
the bushing 126 within the yoke arm 22 so as to rigidify its
assembly to the yoke arm.
Baker, col. 5, ll. 40-46.
To the extent that the Examiner determined bushing126, which is
located proximate king pin 122, corresponds to the “first knuckle,” we
disagree. Bushing 126 is located only in the bore 124 of the upper yoke arm
22, while claim 1 calls for the first knuckle to be connected to both the upper
suspension arm and the lower suspension arm. While bushing 126 is
connected to the upper yoke arm 22 of Baker, it does not appear to be
connected to the lower yoke arm 24.
To the extent that the Examiner determined the end portion of upper
yoke arm 22 that contains bore 124, which is proximate king pin 122,
corresponds to the “first knuckle,” again we disagree. Claim 1 calls for the
first knuckle to be “connected to an upper suspension arm.” The Examiner
determined the upper yoke arm 22 corresponds to the claimed “upper
suspension arm.” As such, the end portion of upper yoke arm 22 which
contains bore 124 cannot be the first knuckle because this end portion is an
integral portion of upper yoke arm 22 and it cannot be connected to itself.
Appeal 2011-000197
Application 10/530,180

7
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Baker discloses “a first knuckle” as
called for in claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse both grounds of rejection of
claim 1 and both grounds of rejection of dependent claims 2-6, each of
which rely on the unsupported finding that Baker discloses the claimed “first
knuckle.”
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Baker discloses “a first knuckle” as called for in independent claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6.

REVERSED

mls