Ex Parte SatouDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613123697 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/123,697 04/11/2011 Yuusuke Satou NS-US095128 9894 22919 7590 12/27/2016 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP David Tarnoff 1233 20TH STREET, NW Suite 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680 EXAMINER MORALES, OMAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 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): mailpto @ giplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUUSUKE SATOU Appeal 2014-008445 Application 13/123,697 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Yuusuke Satou (Appellant) seeks our review under 35U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—9 and 14. Claims 10—13 have been indicated as being allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on December 14, 2016, with Joseph J. Buczynski, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant. We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-008445 Application 13/123,697 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a multi-link engine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A multi-link engine comprising: an engine block body including at least one cylinder; a piston reciprocally disposed inside the cylinder of the engine block body; an upper link having a first end pivotally connected to the piston by a piston pin; a lower link rotatably mounted on a crankpin of a crankshaft and connected to a second end of the upper link by an upper pin; and a control link having a first end and a second end, the first end of the control link being rotatably connected to the lower link by a control pin and the second end of the control link being pivotally mounted on a pivot portion of a control shaft, the upper link, the lower link and the control link being configured and arranged with respect to each other such that at least one kind of inertia force of a prescribed order among inertia forces of second or higher order in terms of an engine rotational speed act transversely leftward and rightward on the upper link, the lower link and the control link with respect to a piston movement direction, so a sum of transversely leftward and rightward inertia forces acting on the gravity center of the control link and the gravity center of the lower link are substantially equal to transversely leftward and rightward inertia forces acting on the gravity center of the upper link. 2 Appeal 2014-008445 Application 13/123,697 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1—9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moteki (US 6,877,463 B2, issued Apr. 12, 2005), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moteki. ANALYSIS Anticipation by Moteki Each of independent claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 includes one or more limitations generally directed configuring and arranging an upper link, a lower link, and a control link in order to balance inertial forces acting in a direction transverse to the direction of travel of a piston. Appeal Br. 17—20, Claims Appx. The Examiner cites to a discussion in Moteki appearing at column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 3, as purportedly evidencing that Moteki explicitly discloses those limitations. See, e.g., Final Act. 3. Appellant posits that the cited portion in Moteki is directed to suppressing an increase in piston thrust load during high-speed operation, and not to balancing inertial forces on the three links. Reply Br. 3. Appellant notes that, even if this portion of the Moteki disclosure were regarded as having some bearing on reducing inertial forces in a transverse direction, the discussion pertains only to upper link 4 in Moteki, and not lower link 7 and/or control link 9. Id. Appellant additionally points out that a portion of Moteki not relied on by the Examiner mentions that a secondary vibration of the crankshaft may occur, but rather than addressing that issue by balancing inertial forces, Moteki states that a clockwise rotation of lower link 7 can reduce the vibration. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Moteki, col. 7,11. 17— 27). 3 Appeal 2014-008445 Application 13/123,697 Appellant has the better position here. Although the portion of Moteki relied on by the Examiner does discuss that an increase in thrust load in a direction perpendicular or transverse to a direction of axial movement of the piston can be prevented, we do not see how, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how, Moteki can be understood as achieving this via a balancing of inertial forces experienced by the upper, lower, and control links. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the rejection of claims 1—9 and 14 as being anticipated by Moteki. Obviousness over Moteki The Examiner alternatively concludes that the subject matter of claims 1—9 and 14 would have been obvious in view of Moteki. Final Act. 4. In doing so, the Examiner “takes Official Notice that it is well known that obtaining the [claimed] behavior in relation to the inertia forces will only require the choice of specific materials and lengths for the upper link, the control link, and the lower link.” Id. With this purported knowledge in the art, the Examiner opines that it would have been obvious to select specific materials and lengths for the three links “for the purpose of obtaining] the desired behavior in relation to the inertia forces.” Id. The taking of Official Notice by the Examiner originated in the Non- Final Action dated March 5, 2013, and was repeated in the Final Action dated August 30, 2013. Notwithstanding that Appellant did not expressly challenge the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice until the filing of the Request for Pre-Appeal Conference on October 25, 2013,1 we agree with 1 Section 2144.03(C) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides that an Examiner may, if an applicant does not traverse an assertion of official notice, regard the statement for which official notice is taken as 4 Appeal 2014-008445 Application 13/123,697 Appellant that the Examiner has provided no evidence in support of the statement that it is well known to choose specific materials and lengths for the links in order to obtain the balancing of inertial forces. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner’s position is not seen as being “capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” In reAhlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). As such, the conclusion as to the obviousness of claims 1—9 and 14 is not supported by rational underpinnings, and cannot be sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The rejection of claims 1—9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED admitted prior art. That section further instructs that the Examiner should clearly indicate that the untraversed statement is regarded as admitted prior art, which was not done in the present case. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation