Ex Parte Voigtlaender et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

13497206 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/497,206 06/05/2012
24972 7590 06/21/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Klaus Voigtlaender
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.
1019117027 8545
EXAMINER
BRUSHABER, FREDERICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS VOIGTLAENDER and
LARS VON JAKUBOWSKI
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Klaus Voigtlaender and Lars Von Jakubowski (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
11. A method for controlling energy recovery in a pedal-
operated vehicle having a crank drive configured to be
selectively rotated in forward direction and backward direction,
an electric auxiliary drive connected to the crank drive, and a
rechargeable energy source connected to the auxiliary drive, the
method comprising:
detecting, by a sensor, a direction of rotation of the crank
drive; and
recovering energy from the auxiliary drive and storing the
recovered energy in the energy source when the direction of
rotation of the crank drive is detected by the sensor as being
directed backward.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 11-13 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Kurita (US 2004/0231905 Al, pub. Nov. 25,
2004).
II. Claims 11-13 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kurita and Goldenfeld (US 4,637,274,
iss. Jan. 20, 1987).
III. Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurita, Goldenfeld, and Roessingh
(US 2010/0050785 Al, pub. Mar. 4, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The issue raised in contesting this rejection is whether Kurita's clutch
unit l' is a "sensor," such that the action performed by clutch l' satisfies the
limitation "detecting, by a sensor, a direction of rotation of the crank drive,"
as called for in claim 11. See Final Act. 2 (citing Kurita iJ 10; Fig. 12); Ans.
2 (citing Kurita iii! 10, 18); Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner
construes the term "sensor" to be "anything, such as a photoelectric cell, that
receives a signal or stimulus and responds to it." Ans. 2. Thus, according to
the Examiner, Kurita's "entire mechanical clutch or portions of the clutch
may be considered a mechanical sensor because the clutch reacts to stimulus
and responds to stimulus." Id.
Appellants, on the other hand, submit that "[a] sensor, as is typically
understood in the context of this art, has the ability to serve as a transducer,
in the sense of converting a physical change into an intelligible signal that
communicates information concerning the magnitude of some aspect of the
physical change." Appeal Br. 3. Thus, Appellants contend that Kurita's
mechanical clutch simply reacts to the physical change imposed upon it "in a
fashion that cannot be regarded as comparable to that of a sensor because it
does not respond by communicating any information indicative of the
physical change that brought about the reaction." Id. at 3--4. Appellants
criticize the Examiner's reliance on a layman's dictionary in construing the
term "sensor" as "an abstract linguistic exercise that fails to account for the
technological context within which these interpretive issues are to be
evaluated" and argue that the Examiner's mere citation to a layman's
dictionary in construing the term "sensor" "is unsatisfactory without a
3
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
showing that a person of ordinary skill and a layman would attribute the
same meaning to the term." Reply Br. 2. Appellants also point to Kurita's
disclosure of "torque detection means," such as a magnetic strain sensor, as
evidence that Kurita does not treat the clutch unit as a type of sensor. Id. at
3. 1 Appellants query, "What point would there be of having a magnetic
strain sensor if the clutch itself functions as its own sensor, as the Examiner
appears to suggest?" Id.
When in the normal rotation locked state, Kurita's clutch unit permits
input torque in the normal rotational (i.e., clockwise) direction from the
motor rotating outer ring 2 in the normal rotational direction to be
transmitted to inner ring 3 and permits reverse input torque in a reverse
rotational (i.e., counterclockwise) direction applied from output shaft 11 to
inner ring 3 to be transmitted from inner ring 3 to outer ring 2. Kurita ,-i,-i 51,
79; Figs. 4, 11.2 When the cyclist operates the brake, causing shoe 17 to
apply braking force on cage 5, Kurita's clutch unit is placed in a reverse
rotation locked state in which input torque in the reverse rotational direction
from outer ring 2 is mechanically transmitted to inner ring 3 and reverse
input torque in the normal rotational direction from inner ring 3 is
transmitted to outer ring 2, but input torque or reverse input torque in the
other direction is not transmitted. Kurita ,-i 52; Figs. 5, 12. The clutch unit
of the second embodiment (clutch unit l ', Figs. 10-12) differs from the first
1 Appellants emphasize that "the magnetic strain sensor [of Kurita] does not
meet the claimed step of detecting a rotation direction of a crank drive, since
it instead measures the magnitude of the torque." Id. (citing Kurita ,-i 38).
2 Input torque refers to torque transmitted from outer ring 2 to inner ring 3,
and reverse input torque refers to torque transmitted from inner ring 3 to
outer ring 2. Kurita ,-i 51.
4
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
embodiment (clutch unit 1, Figs. 4, 5) in that the second embodiment has
two types of cam faces 13a and 13b. Kurita iJ 76. Clutch unit l' also
functions as a torque limiter, which prevents reverse input torque of a
predetermined value or greater from being transmitted to outer ring 2 and to
the motor, in order to prevent damaging impulsive load due to hard
acceleration of the stopped motor. Kurita iii! 18, 80-83.
When claim terminology is construed in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). We agree with Appellants that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would not consider Kurita' s clutch unit to be a "sensor" for detecting a
direction of rotation of the crank drive, as called for in claim 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11
or its dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-17.
Rejection II
Claims 11-13 and 15-17:
Appellants do not present any arguments contesting the rejection of
claims 11-13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurita and Goldenfeld. See Appeal Br. 4 (urging that Kurita "does not
disclose, or even suggest, all the features included in claim 11" and, thus,
"does not anticipate claim 11" or its dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-17, but
not addressing the Examiner's reasoning in determining that the subject
matter of claims 11-13 and 15-17 would have been obvious); see also Final
Act. 4-5 (articulating reasoning explaining why the subject matter of claims
5
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
11-13 and 15-17 would have been obvious). Accordingly, Appellants have
waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of
claims 11-13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5'ee Flyatt v_ Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance
without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection).
Claims 18 and 19:
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner reads the claimed "sensor
detecting the direction of rotation of the crank drive" on Kurita' s magnetic
strain sensor. Final Act. 5 (citing Kurita ii 58). Appellants argue that Kurita
does not disclose detecting a direction of rotation of the crank drive using
the magnetic strain sensor, and, thus, does not disclose "recovering energy
from the auxiliary drive and storing the recovered energy in the energy
source when the direction of rotation of the crank drive is detected by the
sensor as being directed backward." Appeal Br. 3.
Kurita discloses a torque detecting means constantly detecting torque
acting on the crank shaft and, when the detected value becomes lower than a
predetermined value, activating a motor to provide assistive motive power.
Kurita ii 3 8. As a particular example of a torque detecting means, Kurita
discloses a magnetic strain sensor coaxially disposed around the crank shaft
to detect torque. Kurita ii 58. Kurita does not specify that the magnetic
strain sensor detects the direction of the torque applied to the crank shaft, but
Kurita's magnetic strain sensor is among the types of sensors mentioned in
Appellants' Specification as detecting the direction of rotation of the crank
drive. See Spec. 2: 18-22 (stating that the direction of rotation may be
detected by a torque sensor); 3:25-27 (listing a torque sensor or strain gauge
6
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
among the suitable sensors for detecting direction of rotation of the crank
drive). Appellants do not provide any evidence or technical reasoning to
explain why Kurita's magnetic strain sensor would not likewise detect
direction, as well as magnitude, of torque, and thus rotation, applied to the
crank drive. Thus, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's finding
that Kurita's torque sensor/magnetic strain sensor is a sensor as called for in
claim 18.
As for Kurita's alleged failure to disclose recovering energy from the
auxiliary drive and storing the recovered energy in the energy source when
the direction of rotation of the crank drive is detected by the sensor as being
directed backward, the Examiner acknowledges that "Kurita does not
explicitly teach a control unit configured to operate the electric auxiliary
drive in energy recovery mode when the sensor detects a backward rotation
of the crank drive." Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds, however, that
Goldenfeld teaches such, and Appellants do not specifically contest this
finding. Id.; see Appeal Br. 5 (asserting only, "Goldenfeld does not cure the
critical deficiencies noted above with respect to Kurita."). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to include the control unit of a
diode taught in Goldenfeld" into the regenerative braking bicycle of Kurita
"so that the threshold value, the value between drive assist and recharge,
may be changed with selecting a different diode, a cheap common
component, unlike Kurita which is based on mechanical thresholds of clutch
assemblies." Final Act. 5. Appellants do not identify any flaw in the
Examiner's reasoning. See Appeal Br. 4-5. Given the Examiner's
uncontested findings regarding the teachings of Goldenfeld, Appellants' bald
7
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
assertion that Goldenfeld does not cure the deficiencies of Kurita is
insufficient to apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurita and Goldenfeld. We also sustain the
like rejection of claim 19, for which Appellants do not present any separate
arguments for patentability, aside from its dependence from claim 18, and
which, thus, stands or falls with claim 18. See Appeal Br. 5; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection III
In contesting the rejection of claims 14 and 20, Appellants assert only
that "none of the secondary references [(i.e., Goldenfeld and Roessingh)]
overcomes the deficiencies noted above." Appeal Br. 4. For the reasons set
forth above in regard to the rejection of claim 18 based on a combination of
Kurita and Goldenfeld, this bald assertion is insufficient to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claims 14 and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurita, Goldenfeld, and Roessingh.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-13 and 15-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kurita is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-13 and 15-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurita and Goldenfeld is
AFFIRMED.
8
Appeal2014-004806
Application 13/497,206
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurita, Goldenfeld, and Roessingh is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9