Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

14271771 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/271,771 05/07/2014
46442 7590 03/04/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jon O'Neill
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.
83434742; 67186-088PUS1 1023
EXAMINER
HLAVKA, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON O'NEILL and ANTHONY OSBORNE 1
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/271,771
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a rejection of claims
1-11, 13, 15-20, and 23-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Claims 21 and 22 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act., Summary. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a vehicle clutch system with a thrust
bearing load sensor. Spec ,r 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
Fliege
Reul
Iwashita
Armiroli
Miura
1. A clutch system, comprising:
a thrust bearing; and
a load sensor positioned remotely from a front
face of said thrust bearing and configured to
measure a load exerted against said front face of
said thrust bearing.
REFERENCES
US 2001/0030099 Al
US 2004/0040816 Al
US 2008/0078641 Al
US 2009/0288417 Al
JP 2002 340019 A
2
Oct. 18, 2001
Mar. 4, 2004
Apr. 3, 2008
Nov. 26, 2009
Nov. 27, 2002
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Miura.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
anticipated by Fliege.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miura
and Reul.
Claims 9, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Miura and Fliege.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Miura, Fliege, and Armiroli.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either
Miura or Fliege.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either
Miura or Fliege and Iwashita.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 24-Anticipation-Miura
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 24
as a group, and claim 3 separately. App. Br. 7-9. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group, and decide the appeal of these claims on the
basis of claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 3 will be
discussed separately.
2 The Examiner's rejections of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and claims
1, 2, 14, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), have been withdrawn. Ans. 7.
3
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Miura discloses the clutch system of claim 1,
and specifically finds that Miura's load sensor 10 corresponds to the claimed
load sensor that is positioned remotely from a front face of the thrust bearing
and configured to measure a load exerted against said front face of said
thrust bearing. Final 4--5; Ans. 7-8 (citing Miura, Fig. 2). According to the
Examiner, "[a] load is generated at pressure plate 20, moves through the
front face and holding plate 6 into the elastic member 8 and is finally
measured by the load sensor." Ans. 8-9. Appellants respond:
[T]he load sensor 10 is positioned to perceive a change in the
biasing force of a coil spring 8 in order to detect an amount of
wear on the clutch disk 20. A change in the biasing force of the
coil spring 8 is caused by an axial position change of the clutch
release bearing 5, which is the result of wear on the clutch disk
20. It follows from these teachings that the load sensor 10 of
Miura has nothing to do with measuring loads exerted against
the clutch release bearing 5. Instead, Miura is focused on
quantifying axial displacement of the clutch release bearing 5.
Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Miura. While Miura may be "focused on" quantifying axial
displacement of the clutch release bearing 5, that does not show error in the
Examiner's analysis that the load measured by the load sensor is the same as
the load perceived at the front face of the clutch release bearing.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11,
and 24 as anticipated by Miura.
Claim 3
Appellants argue that Miura does not disclose the limitation in claim 3
requiring the front face of the thrust bearing to be rotatable and the rear face
4
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
of the bearing to be nonrotatable. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner responds
with a detailed explanation, using an annotated version of Figure 2 of Miura,
supporting the finding that the front face of Miura's thrust bearing is
rotatable and the rear face is nonrotatable. Ans. 9-10. Appellants do not
respond to this explanation, much less show it to be erroneous. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Miura.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 24, and 25-Anticipation-Fliege
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Fliege discloses the clutch system of claim 1,
and specifically finds that Fliege's sensor 16" is positioned remotely from
the front face of thrust bearing 40 and is configured to measure a load
exerted against the front face. Final Act. 5 ( citing Fliege, Fig. 8). The
Examiner further explains that:
Although Fliege does disclose that a pressure force on element
152 is detected by load sensor 16", paragraph [0065] also
discloses, "the force transmission path between the actuation
piston 26 and the thrust plate 152 accordingly extends along the
force measuring element 16" ... " (e.g., paragraph [0065]). In
other words, the pressure force exerted on the thrust plate is
detected at the thrust bearing, as the bearing is in the force
transmission path between the load sensor and 152. The load
sensor 16" detects a load at thrust bearing 40, in order to
establish the pressure force at 152.
Ans. 11. Appellants respond that "[ n ]either Figure 8 nor the description
accompanying this figure evidences that the inner portion 170 of the thrust
plate 152 exerts a force on a front face of the pivot bearing 40." Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellants, "[t]he inner portion 170 appears to extend through
a bore of the pivot bearing, in which case the force transmission path would
not pass through the front face." Id.
5
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Fliege. Contrary to Appellants' assertions, Fliege does
disclose that inner portion 170 of thrust plate 152 exerts a force on a face of
thrust bearing 40. Specifically, Fliege discloses that actuation piston 26
"acts at the portion 170 [of thrust bearing 152] with pivot bearing 40."
Fliege ,r 64. Fliege further discloses that bearing 40 is pretensioned "against
the inner portion 170." Id. (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures-
as well as Figure 8, which depicts thrust bearing 40 situated between portion
170 and load sensor 16--we agree with the Examiner that thrust bearing 40
is in the force transmission path between force measuring element 16"
[actuation piston 26] and portion 170 of thrust bearing 152. Therefore, the
force measured "by load sensor 16" would be the same as that exerted by the
front face of thrust bearing 40 against portion 170. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Fliege.
Claims 2, 13, and 24
Claims 2 and 24, which depend from claim 1, are not separately
argued. 3 Independent claim 13 is similar to claim 1, and Appellants raise the
same unpersuasive argument in support of the patentability of claim 13 as
for claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2,
13, and 24 as anticipated by Fliege.
3 Appellants do raise an argument specific to claim 2 in the Reply Brief.
Reply Br. 3--4. However, Appellants do not provide good cause for why this
argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, it will not be
considered. 3 7 C.F .R. §41.41 (b )(2).
6
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
Claim 25
Appellants raise additional arguments for independent claim 25.
Claim 25 reads as follows:
25. A clutch system, comprising:
a concentric slave cylinder including a housing and a guide
protruding from said housing;
a thrust bearing including a bore, said guide extending into
said bore;
a load sensor received over said guide and configured to
measure a load exerted against said thrust bearing; and
a spring positioned between said thrust bearing and said
housing, said spring configured to exert a biasing force against
said thrust bearing.
The Examiner asserts that Figure 1 of Fliege discloses all of the
limitations of claim 25, and specifically asserts that "load sensor ( 16) [is]
received over said guide and configured to measure a load exerted against
said thrust bearing." Final Act. 6. Appellants first argue that there is no
support for the Examiner's finding that load sensor 16 is capable of
measuring a load exerted against the thrust bearing 40. App. Br. 9. Instead,
Appellants argue, "measuring arrangement 16 controls the stroke of the
friction clutch but does not measure any loads exerted against the clutch."
In the Answer, the Examiner explains how paragraph 45 of Fliege supports
the finding that measuring element 16 "transmits a signal based on the axial
displacement of element 82 that is indicative of the load present on pivot
bearing 40 during engagement and disengagement." Ans. 13-14.
Appellants do not address this explanation in the Reply Brief. Having
considered Appellants argument, as well as the Examiner's response, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that pivot bearing 40
7
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
measures the load on the thrust bearing during engagement and
disengagement.
Appellants next argue that "the alleged load sensor 16 of Fliege is not
'received over' the alleged guide 30 of the actuation cylinder." App. Br. 10.
According to Appellants, "the measuring arrangement 16 is housed inside a
housing 72 that is completely remote from the alleged guide 30." Id. The
Examiner counters that, as depicted in Figure 1, measuring arrangement 16
"is above [guide] 30 and therefore received over." Ans. 14. In response,
Appellants assert the Examiner's interpretation of the phrase "received over"
to mean "above" is not reasonable. Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not identify
why the Examiner's claim construction is unreasonable. Rather, Appellants
provide their own claim construction of the term, arguing, "[i]t is evident
from the subject specification and Figures that to be 'received over' the
guide, the sensor must accommodate the guide within its bore." Id. ( citing
Spec. ,r 59, Figs. 3, 5, and 6). Though Appellants cite to the Figures and
Specification, they provide little to no discussion of their evidence or why
the evidence supports their claim construction.
We have considered Appellants' argument but are not apprised of
Examiner error in its interpretation of "received over." During prosecution,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Bigio, 3 81
F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In doing so, we give claim terms their
ordinary meanings in the art, unless narrowed by an Applicants'
Specification, e.g., narrowed by an express definition or by an implicit
definition via the term's usage. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). The Specification neither expressly nor
implicitly defines the term "received over." Paragraph 59, which Appellants
8
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
cite in support of its interpretation, does not use the term at all. Instead, this
paragraph and the figures on which Appellants rely describe non-limiting
embodiments of the invention. Although giving claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the
Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is
improper to read into the claims any limitations appearing in specific
embodiments described in the Specification. In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-
22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellants claim construction would have us improperly read terms
into the claim. We note that claim 25 also recites "a thrust bearing including
a bore, said guide extending into said bore." This term clearly means what
Appellants argue "received over" to mean: the thrust bearing
"accommodate[s] the guide within its bore." Reply Br. 5. If Appellants
wanted the claim to require the sensor to accommodate the guide within its
bore as well, they could easily have used the same language. Indeed, the
fact that they used different language suggests that they meant "received
over" to mean something else. See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Our precedent instructs
that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings."). Thus,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner's construction of "received over" is
unreasonable or otherwise erroneous. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 25 as anticipated by Fliege.
Claim 5-Unpatentable over Miura and Reul
Claim 5 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and
additionally requires the clutch system of claim 1 to comprise a concentric
slave cylinder that includes "a housing and a guide that protrudes from said
9
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
housing." Claim 5 recites that "said guide extends through a bore of each of
said thrust bearing and said load sensor." The Examiner states that "it is
unclear from the showing in Miura whether the load sensor is annular such
that the guide would extend through a bore in the bearing and sensor." Final
Act. 7. The Examiner contends, however, that Reul teaches "a similar
device" with "a load sensing device 16 that is annular, and guide 22 extends
through a bore in the bearing 12 and the sensing device 16." Id. In the
Answer the Examiner explains that spring plate 42 "is part of the sensor
device and can be seen to be annular in at least FIG. 4." Ans. 15. The
Examiner further asserts that "[ s ]ince this configuration of load sensor is
known, it would not have been a patentable modification of Miura to make
the sensor 10 of an annular configuration such that the guide would extend
therethrough," and doing so "would have yielded predictable results;
namely, an operable clutch release system." Final Act. 7.
Appellants respond that "no ... 'reasoned' statements have been
articulated to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." Reply Br. 6.
Appellants assert that "it is never explained how the proposed modification
would help achieve an operable clutch release system any more than the
configuration of Miura already does." Id. Appellants further assert that "the
proposed modification to make the sensor 10 annular has no rational basis in
this context, and the annular shape could render the sensor 10 inoperable for
perceiving changes in the biasing force of the coil spring 8." Id.
We have considered Appellants' arguments but are not apprised of
Examiner error. First, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Examiner has
articulated a reason, with rational underpinning, for combining Miura and
Reul, substituting Reul's known annular load sensor for Miura's load sensor
10
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
would have yielded predictable results. See KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("when a patent claims a structure already known in
the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result" to be nonobvious) (citing United States v. Adams, 383
U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). Second, Appellants assertion that this substitution
could render Miura's sensor inoperable for its intended purpose is not
supported by evidence or persuasive argument, and is therefore unpersuasive
of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 5 as unpatentable over Miura and Reul.
Claims 9, 13, and 15-18-Unpatentable over Miura and Fliege
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to position
Miura's load sensor between the spring and bearing, as taught by Fliege, "to
yield a more direct measurement of load on the bearing race." Final Act. 8.
Appellants responds that Miura teaches away from this modification because
Miura teaches mounting load sensor 10 on a spring seat of elastic member 8
to detect the compression load on the spring, and "[i]t is unclear if this
desired measurement would still be possible if the load sensor 10 were
moved to a location between the spring 8 and the bearing 5." App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded that Miura teaches away from this modification,
however, because Appellants do not point to any part of Miura that
criticizes, discredits or discourages the modification. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("the prior art's mere disclosure of more
than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed."). Further, Appellants do
11
Appeal2017-006079
Application 14/2 71,771
support with evidence or persuasive argument its assertion that it would not
be possible to measure the compression load on the spring if Miura's clutch
was modified as proposed.
Appellants also argue that the proposed modification "would require a
significant redesign and reconfiguration" of Miura's clutch. Id. Again,
however, this argument is unsupported, and therefore unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 13, and 15-18
as unpatentable over Miura and Fliege.
The Remaining Rejections
Appellants do not present substantive arguments for claims 19, 20, or
23, but instead rely on arguments previously made and found unpersuasive.
App. Br. 11-12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11, 13,
15-20, and 23-25 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12