Ex Parte Reid

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2013

11447625 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2013)

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.
11/447,625 06/06/2006 Dennis Reid 11083-001 4093
29391 7590 05/07/2013
BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A.
390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE
SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, VICKY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte DENNIS REID
____________

Appeal 2011-003401
Application 11/447,625
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision twice rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-24, 29-34, 36, and
38. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14-16, 25-28, 35, and 37 have been withdrawn.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-003401
Application 11/447,625

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 20, and 33 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and, with emphasis added,
recites:
1. A flexplate for coupling a motor vehicle engine to a
transmission that is unrelated to the engine, the flexplate
comprising:
a single integral body portion having a generally circular
shape, and the body portion having a first side and a second
side;
one or more borings on the body portion, including a first
boring on the first side of the body portion having a diameter
corresponding to a diameter of a hub on a crankshaft on the
engine and a second boring on the second side of the body
portion having a diameter corresponding to a torque converter
of the unrelated transmission;
wherein the first and second borings are coaxially aligned
with one another;
a first set of apertures spaced radially outward from and
circumferentially around the one or more borings and each
aperture is aligned with respect to an aperture on a flange of the
crankshaft for mounting the flexplate to the engine;
a plurality of gear teeth disposed along an outer periphery of the
body portion;
the body portion having a web section disposed annularly
around the one or more borings and between the one or more
borings and the gear teeth; and,
a second set of apertures on the web section spaced
radially outward from one or more borings and each aperture is
aligned with respect to an aperture on a mounting member of
the torque converter for mounting the torque converter to the
flexplate; and, wherein the torque converter is mounted directly
to the flexplate and the flexplate is mounted to the engine
without the use of an adapter disposed between the flexplate
and torque converter, or between the flexplate and engine.

Appeal 2011-003401
Application 11/447,625

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-24, 29-34, 36, and 38 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peters (US 5,524,508, issued
Jun. 11, 1996) and Swenson (US 5,457,883, issued Oct. 17, 1995).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-24, 29-34, 36, and 38 as
unpatentable Peters and Swenson
The Examiner finds that Peters discloses all elements of claim 1
except “wherein the torque converter is mounted directly to the flexplate and
the flexplate is mounted to the engine without the use of an adapter.”1
Claims App’x.; Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to modify the device of Peters to include a flexplate as taught by
Swenson in order to eliminate the need for inventorying a large number of
different flywheels for different engine/transmission combinations. Ans. 4-5
(citing Swenson, col. 2, ll. 22-27). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
proposed combination would render Peters inoperable for its intended
purpose of coupling a transmission to an unrelated engine. App. Br. 7, 11.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the flywheel of Swenson is used to
couple transmissions to related engines, and thus, combining it with Peters
would result in a device incapable of coupling a transmission to an unrelated
engine which is the intended purpose of Peters. App. Br. 11; see also Peters,
abstract (“[a]n adapter unit for coupling a particular engine with an unrelated
transmission”). For example, the Specification indicates one problem that
may be encountered when coupling a transmission to an unrelated engine is

1 Independent claims 9, 20, and 33 recite the identical limitation.
Appeal 2011-003401
Application 11/447,625

4
a mismatch in the diameter of the crankshaft and that of the torque
converter. Compare Spec., figs. 1A and 1B. To rectify this problem,
Appellant has two different “borings” in the flexplate—one to accommodate
the crankshaft and the other for the torque converter. App. Br. 12; see e.g.,
Spec., fig. 8 and para. [0015]. Because Swenson is directed to a
transmission and a related engine, the flexplate only contains one boring as
the engine and transmission diameters match. See e.g., Swenson, fig. 2;
App. Br. 12 (Swenson’s “flywheel is adaptable to accommodate different
engines; however, not transmissions unrelated to the engine.”). The
Examiner has not adequately explained how Swenson’s flex plate could be
included with Peters’ device in a way that would have maintained Peters’
intended purpose of coupling transmissions to unrelated engines. Because
the proposed modification to include Swenson’s flex plate in Peters’ device
would render Peters unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed
combination would not have been obvious. See In re Gordon, 733 F.3d 900,
902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 13,
17-24, 29-34, 36, and 38 as unpatentable over Peters and Swenson is not
sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-24, 29-
34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peters and
Swenson.

REVERSED

Klh