Ex Parte VOGEL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2019

13845012 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/845,012 03/17/2013
20676 7590 01/23/2019
ALFRED J MANGELS
4729 CORNELL ROAD
CINCINNATI, OH 452412433
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Florian VOGEL
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.
P090388-10WOUS 2940
EXAMINER
SETLIFF, MATTHIEU F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2019 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 FLORIAN VOGEL
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellant's Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 28, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 22,
2017), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 17, 2013, as amended July 2,
2015), and to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 22, 2017) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 29, 2016).
2 According to the Appellant, the real parties in interest are the inventor
(Florian Vogel), LuK GmbH & Co. KG, and Schaeffler Technologies AG &
Co. KG. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates to a clamping device for a shaft-
hub connection in a torque-transferring device in a drivetrain of a vehicle."
Spec. 1, 11. 14--15.
Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. A-1-A-2) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below (with added bracketing for reference):
1. A clamping device for an axially engageable shaft-
hub connection in a torque-transferring device in a drive train of
a vehicle, said clamping device comprising:
[(a)] an axial spline connection between an externally
toothed shaft and an internally toothed hub for an axial plug
connection of the externally toothed shaft and the internally
toothed hub;
[ (b)] a toothed ring for circumferentially clamping the
externally toothed shaft and the internally toothed hub when
they form the axial spline connection,
[ ( c)] wherein the toothed ring includes an annular body
having teeth with intervening recesses formed on one of a
radially inner circumferential edge and a radially outer
circumferential edge, and includes a plurality of fastening
tongues carried by the annular body and extending
circumferentially relative to the annular body from one of the
radially inner circumferential edge and the radially outer
circumferential edge of the annular body,
[(d)] wherein the fastening tongues have a curvature in
the axial direction of the toothed ring and have a second end
connected to the annular body of the toothed ring and a first end
spaced circumferentially from the second end and spaced
axially from the annular body, the first end adapted to be
connected to one of the toothed components that form the axial
spline connection,
[ ( e)] wherein the fastening tongues have elasticity and
have a curvature relative to an axial direction of the annular
2
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
body of the toothed ring, so that when the first ends of the
fastening tongues are attached to one of the toothed components
that form the axial spline connection, the one toothed
component to which the fastening tongue first ends are attached
and the annular body of the toothed ring lie in different axial
planes,
[(f)] wherein the fastening tongues have both
circumferential and axial elasticity relative to the annular body
of the toothed ring to allow both axial and circumferential
relative movement between the hub and the shaft of the axial
spline connection;
[ (g)] wherein the teeth of the toothed ring mesh with one
of teeth of the internally toothed hub and teeth of the externally
toothed shaft; and
[(h)] wherein by rotating the toothed ring against a
circumferential force exerted by the fastening tongues a
circumferential clamping force is produced on the shaft-hub
connection when the axial spline connection is in a connected
state, which circumferential clamping force is introduced into
the shaft-hub axial spline connection through connection of the
teeth of the toothed ring with one of the externally toothed shaft
and the internally toothed hub and connection of the fastening
tongues with the other of the externally toothed shaft and the
internally toothed hub to eliminate tooth contact noises that
develop as a result of play in the shaft-hub connection of the
axial spline connection.
THE REJECTI0N3
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Carny et al. (US 4,588,062, iss. May 13, 1986) ("Caray") in
view ofNakane et al. (US 5,797,474, iss. Aug. 25, 1998) ("Nakane").
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 1-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Caray. Ans. 7.
3
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant's contention that the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the independent claims is in error because
the Examiner has not adequately shown how Caray and N akane are
combined to teach "a first end spaced circumferentially from the second end
and spaced axially from the annular body, the first end adapted to be
connected to one of the toothed components that form the axial spline
connection," as recited in limitation ( d) of claim 1 and similarly incorporated
in claim 4. See Appeal Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9-10.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Caray teaches a fastening
tongue (deformable arm 32) having a first end (end near radially inwardly
enlarged portion 4 7). See Final Act. 4; see also Carny Fig. 7. The Examiner
acknowledges that"[ w ]hile not expressly, positively, and clearly set forth in
the instant claim, Caray does not expressly ( although possibly implicit as
noted above) disclose the first end of the fastening tongue being spaced in
the axial direction from the annular body." Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner
relies on Nakane for teaching "a ring that includes an annular body (e.g.
central most annular portion including openings 254-257) and fastening
tongues (e.g. 233) having a first end (e.g. end near 232) spaced both
circumferentially and axially from the annular body." Id. The Examiner
determines one of ordinary skill would have such spacing "in order to
prevent interference of the annular body with the fastening tongues during
the application of circumferential twists (Col. 6, L 1-3)," and to "compensate
for axial misalignment and/ or assembly tolerances." Id. at 6-7.
Caray discloses a torsion damping assembly comprising, in relevant
part, a resiliently deformable arm with a support member. See Carny
4
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
Abstract. Resiliently defonnable arm 32 is attached to second coaxial part B
by pin 45 and is adapted to rotate around pin 45. Id. at col. 5, 11. 45-50.
Ann 32 includes radially inwardly enlarged portion 47 at its free end having
aperture 46 in which pin 45 is received. Id. at col. 5, 11. 50-53. Nakane
discloses a clutch disc with damper plates (Nakane Abstract) having, in
relevant part, a plurality of arc-like cut line or slits formed to cause adjacent
structures centrifugally spirally to be "dislocated from each other in the axial
direction of the clutch axis" (id. at col. 5, 11. 56-66). The dislocation is
"between an inner plate 231 positioned at the inner peripheral side of the
damper plate 23 and an outer plate 232 positioned at the peripheral side
thereof' (id. at col. 14, 11. 16-19) and "causes a plate 233 positioned
intermediate between the inner plate 231 and the outer plate 232 to be
inclined by a slight angle a and vertically spiral along the clutch axis (C)"
(id. at col. 14, 11. 22-25). Due to dislocation between upper surface and
lower surface of the damper plate, there is a little gap in the slit and cut line
in the axial direction of the clutch disc. Id. at col. 14, 11. 26-37, Figs. 5(a),
5(b ). "[W]hen the adjacent structures are dislocated radially from each other
as a result of circumferential twists applied thereto, the arc-like cut lines or
the arc-like slits do not interfere with each other." Id. at col. 5, 1. 67----6, 1. 3.
The Examiner combines Nakane's end near plate 232 with Caray's
end near portion 47. See Final Act. 6-7. Even were we to agree that Nakane
teaches plate 232 spaced circumferentially and axially from the annular
body, as the Appellant states, "in the Caray et al. reference each of the
individual outer ends (element 47 in Fig. 5) are free, whereas in the Nakane
et al. structure the ends of spiral plates 233 are interconnected with one of
inner plate 231 and outer plate 232." The Examiner has not adequately
5
Appeal2017-010961
Application 13/845,012
explained how the "end" ofNakane's interconnected plate 232 is combined
with Caray' s free end of portion 4 7 such that Caray' s portion 4 7 is spaced
axially from the annular body. We do not see, and the Examiner does not
adequately explain how Nakane's plate end, spaced such so that "the arc-like
cut lines or the arc-like slits do not interfere with each other" (Nakane,
col. 6, 1. 3), would be combined with Carny's end with aperture 46 through
which pin 45 is received, attaching the arm to another part, "in order to
prevent interference of the annular body with the fastening tongues during
the application of circumferential twists" or to "compensate for axial
misalignment and/or assembly tolerances" (Final Act. 7).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 4, and of dependent claims 2, 3,
and 5-10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6