Ex Parte ReiterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201310711842 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARKUS REITER ____________________ Appeal 2011-004775 Application 10/711,842 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, 16, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2011-004775 Application 10/711,842 2 The claims relate to a low-noise chainwheel assembly. Claim 1, the only independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter and reproduced below: 1. A chainwheel assembly including a plurality of chainwheels engageable with a chain having successive alternating pairs of inner link plates and outer link plates connected by pins, the pins surrounded by rollers, the chainwheel assembly comprising: at least one smaller chainwheel having a plurality of teeth spaced about its circumference; and at least one larger chainwheel having a plurality of teeth spaced about its circumference, the larger chainwheel and the smaller chainwheel oriented relative to each other such that a distance between a center of the chain roller positioned between a pair of adjacent teeth on the larger chainwheel and the center of the chain roller between a pair of adjacent teeth on the smaller chainwheel is substantially an integer multiple of the chain pitch, at least a first tooth of the pair of adjacent teeth on the larger chainwheel including a first lateral recess disposed on a front face of the larger chainwheel facing the smaller chainwheel to allow the chain to move from the smaller chainwheel towards the larger chainwheel, the first lateral recess having a first run-on ramp configured to lift the outer link plate in a radial direction when the outer link plate is positioned laterally at the first tooth, at least a second tooth of the pair of adjacent teeth disposed adjacent to the first tooth opposite the drive rotation direction including a second recess disposed on the front face of the larger chainwheel facing the smaller chainwheel to allow the chain to move from the smaller chainwheel towards the larger chainwheel, the second recess having a second run-on ramp configured to lift the Appeal 2011-004775 Application 10/711,842 3 outer link plate in the radial direction when the outer link plate is positioned laterally at the second tooth. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Kamada US 6,340,338 B1 Jan. 22, 2002 Yahata US 2002/0086753 A1 Jul. 4, 2002 REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamada. Ans. 4-5. 2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yahata. Ans. 5-7. OPINION Anticipation of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 by Kamada Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 as a group. Br. 4- 5. We select claim 1 as representative with all these claims standing or falling together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant contends that Kamada fails to describe first and second run- on ramps positioned respectively at first and second adjacent teeth. Br. 4. Appellant relies on Kamada’s reference to US 4,889,521 to Nagano as explaining the operation of Kamada’s run-on ramp. Id. Appellant implies that because Nagano describes only one run-on ramp, Kamada also necessarily describes just one such ramp. Id. The Examiner finds that, because claim 1 does not require that the first and second run-on ramps are spaced apart, Kamada describes the first Appeal 2011-004775 Application 10/711,842 4 and second run-on ramps in the form of the recesses A and B underlying adjacent teeth as shown in Figure 4. Ans. 8-9 (citing Kamada, Fig. 4). The Examiner bolsters this finding by noting that Kamada describes first and second lateral recesses of different lateral depths which thus define the first and second run-on ramps as separate, but adjacent. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. We also note that Appellant did not respond to the Examiner’s findings as stated in the Answer. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16. Anticipation of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 by Yahata Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 as a group. Br. 5-6. We select claim 1 as representative and analyze the rejection of these claims by focusing solely upon claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner finds that Yahata describes the claimed first and second run-on ramps as Yahata’s chamfered portions 48 (identified as items D and E on the annotated version of Yahata’s Figure 5). Ans. 6. Appellant argues that Yahata fails to describe the run-on ramps recited in claim 1 because the chamfered portions 48 fail “to lift the outer link plate in a radial direction when the outer link plate is positioned laterally at the first [or second] tooth.” Br. 5. Based on our own review of Yahata, we agree with Appellant. Yahata’s chamfered portions 48 are smooth surfaces without sharp edges. Yahata, para. [0038]. Yahata explains that the chamfered portions prevent mud and dirt from accumulating on the sprocket that might interfere with the movement of a chain from a larger to a smaller sprocket. Id. Yahata never describes its smoothly chamfered portions as lifting the drive chain, nor do we believe that Yahata’s depiction of the chamfered portions in Figure 5 Appeal 2011-004775 Application 10/711,842 5 supports such a finding. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24. DECISION For the reasons stated above, we: 1. AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamada; and 2. REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yahata. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation