Ex Parte Platt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

13111087 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/111,087 05/19/2011
27572 7590 12/30/2015
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Winston Platt
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.
9539-000173/US/COB 4825
EXAMINER
PANG, ROGER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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):
troydocketing@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WINSTON PLATT
Appeal2013-008700
Application 13/111,087
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Winston Platt ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 10-14. Claims 8 and 15
have been cancelled, and claims 9 and 16 are objected to for being
dependent on a rejected base claim. Appeal Br. 2; Final Act. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is America Axle &
Manufacturing, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-008700
Application 13/111,087
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A vehicle driveline comprising:
an axle assembly having an input member, a first output
member, a second output member and a power distribution
system,
the input member being configured to receive a rotary
input,
the first output member being configured to drive a first
vehicle wheel on a first side of a vehicle,
the second output member being configured to drive a
second vehicle wheel on a second side of the vehicle,
the power distribution system being driven by the input
member and distributing torque between the first and second
output members, the power distribution system comprising a
differential and a transmission, the differential having first and
second differential outputs that are received in a differential
case,
the first differential output being coupled directly
to the first output member,
the transmission being configured to control rotary
power transmitted through the differential to the first and
second output members,
the axle assembly being operable in a first mode, a
second mode and a third mode,
wherein operation of the axle assembly in the first mode
has no effect on a torque transmitted from the second
differential output to the second output member,
wherein operation of the axle assembly in the second
mode reduces the torque that is transmitted from the second
differential output to the second output member relative to the
torque that is supplied to the second output member when the
axle assembly is operated in the first mode, and
wherein operation of the axle assembly in the third mode
increases the torque that is transmitted from the second
differential output to the second output member relative to the
torque that is supplied to the second output member when the
axle assembly is operated in the first mode;
2
Appeal2013-008700
Application 13/111,087
wherein the transmission further compnses a variable
ratio reduction.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Al-A2.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Meixner (US 2007 /0249456 Al; pub. Oct. 25, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Meixner
teaches the vehicle driveline, including "wherein the transmission ...
comprises a variable speed reduction (with control of 34 ). " Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant argues that "a person of ordinary skill in the art could
understand the 'transmission' (32) of Meixner[] as being a gear reduction
with but a single gear ratio and as such, the 'transmission' (32) of Meixner[]
is not a variable ratio reduction and does not provide the function of a
variable ratio reduction." Appeal Br. 9. Appellant explains that Meixner's
electric machine acts on a superposition gear which "does not cause the
superposition gear (32) to operate as a variable ratio reduction as a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret that term." Id. at 10.
Specifically, "a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
claimed transmission as being configured to provide two or more different
gear ratios, whereas a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the superposition gear (32) to be of a single speed reduction ratio." Id.
The Examiner responds that Meixner teaches "the electric machine
acting as a brake, as a generator (braking/slowing down), or as an electric
3
Appeal2013-008700
Application 13/111,087
motor (operating in both directions, which will cause the torque vectoring
between the outputs)." Ans. 8-9. According to the Examiner, "[t]he
transmission 32 of Meixner is a common configuration for variable ratio
reduction," which "often take the form of a planetary gearing with an input
member, an output, and a reaction member that will vary the input/output
ratio by controlling the reaction members (in this case via the electric
machine 34)." Id. at 9.
In reply, Appellant submits that "the transmission of Meixner is a
single ratio reduction that is capable of receiving two rotary inputs," one of
which "is generated by the torque vectoring motor (34) that is input to the
transmission via the sun gear (36) of the transmission (32)." Reply Br. 2.
Appellant is correct in that Meixner's transmission is a single ratio
reduction, not a variable ratio reduction. Meixner teaches that electric
machine 34 is operated as an electric motor, braked, or operated as a
generator such that "the output torque on the output shaft 18 [is] intensified
or reduced accordingly," and that this torque "is transmitted by the
superposition gear 32 and the differential 10." Meixner i-f 30. Meixner
utilizes electric machine 34 to modify the torque on the output shaft; the
modified torque is not the result of a variable ratio reduction. In other
words, Meixner discloses a transmission with a set ratio reduction that
utilizes an electric machine to intensify or reduce the output torque. See id.
i-f 3 0, Fig. 1. Thus, the Examiner's finding that Meixner discloses that "the
transmission further comprises a variable ratio reduction" is in error. See
Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 8-9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-7 depending therefrom. Because the
4
Appeal2013-008700
Application 13/111,087
Examiner relies on the same erroneous finding to reject independent claim
10 (see Final Act. 4--5), we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 10 and claims 11-14 depending therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-14 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
em
5