12644783 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

Ex Parte Perosky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 2016

12644783 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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. 12/644,783 12/22/2009 Edward Perosky 708368US1 7007 759024938 FCA US LLC CIMS 483-02-19 800 CHRYSLER DR EAST AUBURN llll.I S. MI48326-2757 12/27/2016 EXAMINER PRATHER, GREGORY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): chris.davenport@fcagroup.com michelle.madak@fcagroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD PEROSKY, LAWRENCE LABA, and CHRISTOPHER J. STIEFEL Appeal 2015-001873 Application 12/644,7831 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CINTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the “[ejmbodiments disclosed . . . relate generally to transmissions and, more particularly, to a synchronizer 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Chrysler Group LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-001873 Application 12/644,783 mechanism for synchronizing rotation of gears in a manual transmission.” Spec. 11. CLAIMS Claims 1—15 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method of using a synchronizer arrangement for a manual transmission having a first shaft, a second shaft, and a plurality of gears carried on said first and second shafts, said plurality of gears adapted to be intermeshed for transferring power therebetween, said method comprising: moving a synchronizer sleeve that is slidably coupled to a hub fixed for rotation on one of the first or second shafts by axially moving the synchronizer sleeve along said hub in a first direction from a neutral position to a first operative position whereby said synchronizer sleeve operatively couples with a first gear of said plurality of gears; and synchronizing the rotation of said synchronizer sleeve with the rotation of said first gear at first and second times during engagement of the first gear. Appeal Br. 12. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sailler2 in view of Sypula.3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sailler.4 2 Sailler, Jr. et al., US 5,862,900, iss. Jan. 26, 1999. 3 Sypula et al., US 5,758,753, iss. June 2, 1998. 4 We note that this rejection is first raised in the Answer. See Ans. 2. The Examiner states that this is not a new ground of rejection because it relies on the same teachings previously relied upon in rejecting the claims. Id. 2 Appeal 2015-001873 Application 12/644,783 DISCUSSION Claims 1 and 11 are the only independent claims on appeal. The sole dispositive issue on appeal relates to how we interpret the “synchronizing” steps of claims 1 and 11, which respectively require “synchronizing the rotation of said synchronizer sleeve with the rotation of said first gear at first and second times during engagement of the first gear” and “synchronizing the rotation of said synchronizer mechanism and an adjacent gear at first and second times as said sleeve is moved into engagement with said adjacent gear.” See Appeal Br. 12, 15. The Examiner finds that Sailler alone or in combination with Sypula teaches synchronizing as claimed because the claims can be broadly interpreted such that once synchronization of the rotation of the sleeve and gear occurs, there will be an infinite number of instances in which they are synchronized. See Ans. 19—22. To put it another way, the Examiner essentially finds that because the time of the synchronization is not infinitely small, each particular instance during whatever time they are synchronized may be considered a separate synchronizing event. See id. We agree with Appellants that this is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim. See Reply Br. 2—A. In particular, we agree that in light of the description of synchronizing in the Specification the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires synchronizing at two separate and distinct times and does not encompass two instances during a single Appellants do not address this statement in their Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 1-4. 3 Appeal 2015-001873 Application 12/644,783 synchronization. See Reply Br. 2—3 (citing Spec. ]Hf 9, 26—29, 31). For example, Specification paragraph 9 states: One advantage of the disclosed embodiments is that an improved synchronizer mechanism is provided for a manual transmission. The synchronizer mechanism energizes the intermediate clutch ring two times as the synchronizer sleeve is moved from the neutral position to an adjacent gear, thereby minimizing the difference in angular velocities of the synchronizer sleeve and adjacent gear as the two components are engaged. This paragraph contemplates two separate synchronization events. The other paragraphs cited by Appellants also support this position. See, e.g., Spec. 126 (describing a first synchronization), 128 (describing a second separate synchronization). Thus, we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the Specification. Further, we interpret the claims to require synchronizing at two separate times, in contrast to the Examiner’s interpretation. The Examiner does not provide any indication of how the art teaches or otherwise makes obvious the synchronizing steps of claims 1 and 11 under this interpretation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1—15. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-15. REVERSED 4