Ex Parte Naumanen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2007

10451725 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JARI NAUMANEN and MAURI PARRI
____________

Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: June 27, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jari Naumanen and Mauri Parri (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

2
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a belt drive device
including two continuous drive belts driven by drive rollers and arranged to
travel around stretching rollers and be pressed by press rolls against opposite
surfaces of a cable or the like drawn by the belt drive device (Specification
1). Independent claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed invention and
read as follows:
1. An arrangement for a belt drive device, which
comprises two continuous drive belts, which are
arranged to be operated by means of drive rollers,
and which are arranged to travel around stretching
rollers as continuous loops spaced apart, and which
are arranged to be pressed by means of press rolls
against the opposite surfaces of a cable to be
drawn, wherein the drive rollers are arranged to be
rotated by a single power source by driving two
planetary gears connected in parallel and provided
with angular front transmission, each planetary
gear having an independently rotatable primary
axle, and the rotary motion generated by the power
source is arranged to be transmitted in the same
direction to the primary axles of both planetary
gears with angular front transmission in order to
rotate secondary axles and the drive rollers
connected thereto in opposite directions.
11. An arrangement for a belt drive device, which
comprises two continuous drive belts, which are
arranged to be operated by means of drive rollers,
and which are arranged to travel around stretching
rollers as continuous loops spaced apart, and which
are arranged to be pressed by means of press rolls
against the opposite surfaces of a cable to be
drawn, wherein the drive rollers are arranged to be
rotated by a single power source by driving two
gear systems each gear system having a driven,
fixed and planetary gear, the gear systems
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

3
connected in parallel and provided with angular
front transmission, and the rotary motion generated
by the power source is arranged to be transmitted
in the same direction to the primary axles of both
planetary gears with angular front transmission in
order to rotate secondary axles and the drive rollers
connected thereto in opposite directions.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fisk US 2,642,280 Jun. 16, 1953
Bruestle US 2,884,120 Apr. 28, 1959
Bonfiglioli Technical Bulletin, Guidelines for selection of planetary gear
units of the 300-INDUSTRIAL series for installation in hazardous areas,
classified by Directive 99/92/EC 1-18 (hereinafter “Bonfiglioli”).
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1-10 as unpatentable over Bruestle in view of Fisk and
Bonfiglioli and claim 11 as unpatentable over Bruestle in view of Fisk.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed June 30, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed April 13, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed August 28,
2006). Appellants’ counsel presented oral argument in this appeal on June
5, 2007.

OPINION
Claims 1-10
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner concedes that “Bruestle does not
disclose press rolls that press the continuous belts and does not disclose that
the planetary gears have independently rotatable primary axles” (Answer 3).
In order to overcome the first of these deficiencies, the Examiner contends it
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

4
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellants’ invention to make the pressing elements (rails 41, 42) of
Bruestle’s press rollers for pressing belts (chains 80, 82) into engagement
with work to be fed as taught by Fisk to reduce friction and wear between
the belts and the pressing structures. Id. Appellants do not specifically
challenge this contention. Rather, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s
further determination that it would have been obvious to provide Bruestle
with planetary gears having independently rotatable primary axles as taught
by Bonfiglioli (Answer 4) to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 9-11). Accordingly, the dispositive issue with respect to the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2-10 depending therefrom, is whether the Examiner
erred in determining that it would have been obvious, in view of Bonfiglioli,
to modify Bruestle to provide two planetary gears having independently
rotatable primary axles, as called for in claim 1.
The drive arrangement for driving Bruestle’s shafts 11 and 12, which
in turn rotate sprockets 13 and 14 to drive chains 80 and 82, includes a
single shaft 19 rotated by a suitable power source through a chain and
sprocket 24. Shaft 19 has a pair of bevel gears 17 and 18 mounted thereon,
which bevel gears mesh with bevel gears 15 and 16 to drive sprockets 13
and 14. Bruestle’s drive arrangement effects “conjoint movement of the
chains 80 and 82.” (Bruestle, col. 1, ll. 67-72, col. 2, ll. 67-68, col. 3, ll. 17-
26.)
The Examiner does not specify how Bruestle is to be modified to
provide “planetary gears having independently rotatable primary axles as
taught by Bonfiglioli” (Answer 4). The Examiner does hint, however, that
the modification would involve the substitution of a planetary gear angle
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

5
drive of the type disclosed by Bonfiglioli for each of the bevel gear sets 17,
15 and 18, 16 of Bruestle (Answer 5).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars
its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1396 (2007). We must also keep in mind that
a patent composed of several elements is not
proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each
of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art. Although common sense directs one to
look with care at a patent application that claims as
innovation the combination of two known devices
according to their established functions, it can be
important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.
Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In this instance, while the planetary gear angle drive disclosed by
Bonfiglioli appears to serve the same basic function of the bevel gear sets of
Bruestle, namely, transmission of rotation in a direction normal to the axis of
transmitted rotation, the Examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent,
how one of ordinary skill in the art could modify Bruestle to permit such a
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

6
substitution using the single shaft 19 of Bruestle, without destroying the
other disclosed function of the shaft 19, namely, rotation of sprocket 23
secured at one end thereof (Bruestle, col. 2, ll. 2-4 and Fig. 3). Rather,
substitution of a planetary gear angle drive of the type disclosed by
Bonfiglioli for each of the bevel gear sets 17, 15 and 18, 16 of Bruestle, as
apparently proposed by the Examiner, would seemingly involve an extensive
and complex redesign of the drive transmission arrangement from the power
source to such planetary gear angle drives without any apparent benefit or
improvement resulting therefrom. We therefore conclude that the Examiner
erred in determining it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Bruestle to provide two planetary gears having
independently rotatable primary axles, as called for in claim 1. The rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2-10 depending from claim 1, is reversed.
Claim 11
Claim 11, like claim 1, requires two planetary gears, with each gear
having its own primary axle.1 Bruestle, as discussed above, provides only a
single primary axle and thus lacks this feature. The Examiner’s application
of Fisk for its teaching of providing a feeding apparatus having a pair of
continuous belts with press rollers 7, 8 for pressing the belts into
engagement with work to be fed (Answer 4) does not make up for the
deficiency of Bruestle. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in

1 While claim 11 does not positively recite each planetary gear having its
own primary axle, the reference to “the primary axles of both planetary
gears” requires two primary axles, one for each planetary gear. Although
the failure to provide strict antecedent basis for the primary axles does not
render the claim indefinite, this informality is deserving of correction.
Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725

7
determining that the subject matter of claim 11 is unpatentable over Bruestle
in view of Fisk. The rejection is reversed.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
P.O. BOX 19928
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320