Ex Parte Rivin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 15, 2006

10113524 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EVGENY I. RIVIN
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before FRANKFORT, OWENS and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 4. Claims 5 through 9, the only
other claims remaining in the application, have been withdrawn from
further consideration as being drawn to non-elected species.

Appellant’s invention relates to a wedge mechanism (e.g., Fig.
2) and means therein for realizing a greater mechanical advantage
while assuring a reduced sensitivity to vibratory movements,
eliminating the need for lubrication, and making the wedge
mechanism largely insensitive to contamination by environmental
Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

2
contaminants such as water and other fluids, dirt, and abrasive
particles, etc. The invention also eliminates the need for making
contact surfaces in wedge mechanisms with high hardness and high
geometrical accuracy, thereby allowing the use of lighter materials
for the structural parts of the wedge mechanism. Independent claim
1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
that claim can be found in Appendix A of appellant’s brief.

The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims includes:
Rivin ‘540 5,595,540 Jan. 21, 1997
Appellant’s admitted prior art -- the basic
conventional wedge mechanism of Figure 1 and the description
thereof on pages 1-3 of the specification (hereinafter, the AAPA)

Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Rivin ‘540.

Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the
above-noted obviousness rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant concerning that rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed October 4, 2005)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s
Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

3
second revised brief (filed July 19, 2005) for the arguments
thereagainst.

OPINION

In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art, and to the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determination that the examiner’s above-noted
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.

The examiner’s position concerning the rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is set forth on pages 3-5 of the
answer. Essentially, the examiner points out that the basic
conventional wedge mechanism of AAPA Figure 1 is responsive to the
structural components set forth in claim 1 on appeal, except that
the AAPA does not describe, teach or suggest at least one of the
surface contacts between the wedge member (2) and the base member
(1) or the output member (3) “being maintained through a thin
constant thickness shim... comprising at least one thin layer of
Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

4
elastomeric material so that the relative motion between the
contact surfaces is accommodated by internal shear in said
elastomeric layers,” and wherein the thin elastomeric layers have
length-to-thickness and width-to-thickness ratios that are greater
than approximately 10.

The examiner looks to the torsional connection and improved
“Oldham” coupling in the power transmission system of Rivin ‘540,
and specifically to the laminated elements (109, 110, 111, 112) in
the holding structures (105a, 105b) interconnecting the
intermediate members (103a, 103b) of the rotary coupling as
teaching elastomeric shim members (layers 114) similar to those set
forth in the claims on appeal. Given the advantages associated
with the improved torque transmitting coupling of Rivin ‘540 over a
conventional “Oldham” coupling, wherein the sliding connections
between the hubs and the intermediate member characteristic of a
conventional “Oldham” coupling are replaced with the holding
members and laminated elements noted above, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellant’s invention to modify the contact surfaces
of the basic conventional wedge mechanism of appellant’s admitted
Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

5
prior art Figure 1 by providing elastomeric shims therein in order
to provide the advantages noted in Rivin ‘540.

Like appellant (brief, pages 3-5), we find no reasonable
suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art supporting the
examiner’s proposed modification of the simple basic wedge
mechanism of the AAPA in view of the clearly unrelated and
structurally distinct improved “Oldham” coupling in the rotary
power transmission system of Rivin ‘540. While the broad concepts
alluded to by the examiner in Rivin ‘540, when viewed through the
prism of hindsight, might appear to make the proposed combination
plausible, we do not believe that one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the present invention, absent the hindsight benefit
of appellant’s teachings in the present case, would have been led
to consider the complex rotary coupling of Rivin ‘540 when
evaluating the issue of minimizing friction between the contact
surfaces of the simple wedge mechanism of the AAPA. Like
appellant, we do not consider that there are adequate similarities
in either structure or function that would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to look to torsional couplings for misaligned
rotary shafts to solve a problem relating to friction in a simple
wedge mechanism like that of the AAPA.
Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

6
In light of the foregoing, we agree with appellant that the
examiner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. For that reason, we refuse to sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Comment [jvn1]: Type or Paste
Address

Appeal No. 2006-0845
Application No. 10/113,524

7

Evgeny I. Rivin
4227 Fox Pointe Drive
West Bloomfield, MI 48323

CEF/ki