Ex Parte Watanabe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12878448 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/878,448 09/09/2010
23911 7590 09/22/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Atsushi WATANABE
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.
105729.62867US 50ll
EXAMINER
ESHETE, ZELALEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ATSUSHI WATANABE
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Atsushi Watanabe (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's non-final decision rejecting claims 1-10. 2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hitachi
Automotive Systems, Ltd. Br. 1 (filed Feb. 18, 2014).
2 The Examiner indicates that claims 11-18 are allowed. Non-Final
Act. 5 (transmitted July 31, 2013).
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to "valve timing control apparatuses for
internal combustion engines." Spec. iJ 1.
Claims 1-3 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A valve timing control apparatus for an internal
combustion engine, comprising:
a housing body having a hollow cylindrical shape
including an opening at an axial end, wherein the housing body
is formed integrally with a pulley at an outside periphery of the
housing body, and formed integrally with a shoe at an inside
periphery of the housing body, wherein the pulley is adapted to
receive torque from a crankshaft of the internal combustion
engine through a belt and configured to be driven by the belt,
and wherein the shoe projects inwardly in a radial direction of
the housing body;
a sealing plate fixed to the axial end of the housing body,
the sealing plate closing the opening of the housing body;
a vane rotor adapted to be fixed to a camshaft of the
internal combustion engine, and rotatably mounted in the
housing body, wherein the vane rotor includes a vane, wherein
the vane defines a working fluid chamber between the vane and
the shoe, and wherein the working fluid chamber is adapted to
supply and drainage of working fluid; and
a sealing ring disposed between the housing body and the
sealing plate, the sealing ring sealing the working fluid
chamber,
wherein:
the housing body is formed of an aluminum-based
metal material and anodized, wherein the housing body
includes a base layer and an anodic oxide coating film
layer;
the anodic oxide coating film layer is present at the
outside periphery; and the sealing ring abuts on the base
layer at the axial end.
2
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro (JP 2004-060571,
pub. Feb. 26, 2004), Kazumi (JP 2000-282820, pub. Oct. 10,
2000), Ogawa '303 (US 2007/0218303 Al, pub. Sept. 20,
2007), and Strauss (US 7,533,695 B2, iss. May 19, 2009).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303,
Strauss, and Ogawa '322 (US 6,338,322 Bl, iss. Jan. 15, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3
Although Appellant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303, and
Strauss, separately, nonetheless, Appellant presents essentially similar
arguments. See Br. 4-7. As such, the following analysis applies equally to
claims 1-3 rejected over the combined teachings of Y asuhiro, Kazumi,
Ogawa '303, and Strauss.
As to claims 1-3, Appellant notes that, (1) the claimed valve timing
control apparatus is "a belt-drive type" (Br. 4, 5, and 7); (2) the features of
claims 1-3 "suppress belt degradation" (id.); and (3) the claimed "sealing
ring ... serves to suppress working fluid from seeping and leaking out of the
housing" (id. at 5, 7). With respect to claims 2 and 3, Appellant further
notes that, (4) wear resistance of the housing is improved by applying an
3
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
anodic oxidation coating film (see id. at 5-6) and ( 5) sealing of the housing
is improved by not applying an anodic oxidation coating film at an axial end
surface of the housing (see id. at 6-7).
We are not persuaded because Appellant's arguments amount to a
mere recitation of claim elements. Such statements do not constitute a
separate argument for patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this case, the
Examiner made specific findings with respect to the limitations mentioned
above. See e.g., Non-Final Act. 2-3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Strauss discloses that, "the use of
either chain or belt drive are equivalents." Ans. 2 (citing Strauss, col. 1, 11.
50-55) (transmitted May 27, 2014); see also Non-Final Act. 3. The
Examiner also finds that Kazumi "teaches a sealing ring disposed between
the housing body and the sealing plate, the sealing ring sealing the working
fluid chamber." Ans. 3 (citing Kazumi, Fig. 4); see also Non-Final Act. 3.
Further, the Examiner finds that Ogawa '303 "teaches using [an] aluminum
alloy coated with anodic oxide coating for engine part[ s] in order to enhance
heat crack resistance and adhesion resistance." Ans. 3 (citing Ogawa '303,
,-i,-i 4, 47 (teaching intake/exhaust valves)). Hence, because Appellant merely
points out the claimed features and the advantages that they provide, but
does not explain how these same features disclosed in Kazumi, Ogawa '303,
and Strauss, respectively, do not satisfy the claimed limitations, Appellant's
arguments do not persuasively show errors in the Examiner's findings.
Moreover, we note that Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
the teachings ofYasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303, and Strauss individually
4
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
when the rejection as articulated by the Examiner is based on a combination
ofYasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303, and Strauss. See In re Merck & Co. Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further argues that because,
The housings of the Y asuhiro et al. and Kazumi et al.
arrangements are made of a relatively hard material, such as an
iron-based material ... there is no motivation for providing an
anodic oxide coating film layer on the outer peripheral surface of
the housing body, even in view of the disclosures supplied by the
Ogawa et al. publication and the Strauss et al. patent.
Br. 5; see also id. at 6, 7.
We do not agree with Appellant's argument because the Examiner has
provided an adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to explain why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Y asuhiro,
Kazumi, Ogawa '303, and Strauss. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (stating that "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness" (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006))). Specifically, the Examiner concludes that,
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of
[Yasuhiro] by providing the arrangement as taught by [Kazumi]
in order to improve the sealing performance as taught by
[Kazumi]. It also would have been obvious to one having an
ordinary skill in the art to further modify by providing the
arrangement as taught by Ogawa['303] in order to enhance heat
crack resistance and adhesion resistance as taught by
Ogawa['303]. It also would have been obvious to one having an
5
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
ordinary skill in the art to adopt belt drive as taught by Strauss
for such is an equivalent thereof as taught by Strauss.
Non-Final Act. 3.
With respect to Strauss, the Examiner further states that, "[i]t is well
known in the art of engine that chain or belt drive has been used as a means
to transfer power from the crank shaft to the camshaft and each are
notoriously well known in the art as equivalent alternatives thereof." Ans. 2.
As to Ogawa '303, the Examiner explains that, because the heat crack
resistance and adhesion resistance of anodic oxide coating of Ogawa '303 "is
relevant for the belt-housing contact," it "has an obvious effect on the life of
the belt by suppressing its degradation." Id. at 3--4. Furthermore, the
Examiner notes that in view of the "cost involved in applying such a coating
on any machine element ... such application of the material feature should
be adopted accordingly." Id. at 4. In regards to Kazumi, the Examiner
expounds that, "it is within the scope of one having ordinary skill in the art
to adopt [Kazumi's] sealing for the obvious purpose of sealing as is the
common practice in the art of engine design." Id. at 3-4.
As such, given that Strauss discloses that chain and belt drives are
equivalent alternatives, Ogawa '303 discloses anodic oxide coated engine
parts (i.e., intake/exhaust valves), and Kazumi discloses a sealing ring for
sealing a working fluid chamber, the Examiner's reasoning has rational
underpinnings. Appellant has not persuasively established otherwise.
Finally, in contrast to Appellant's position that "[t]he housing[] of the
Y asuhiro ... and Kazumi ... arrangements are made of a relatively hard
material, such as an iron-based material," we note that Yasuhiro specifically
6
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
discloses that housing 30 is formed of an aluminum alloy. Yasuhiro,
Abstract (English translation). Whether Kazumi's housing is made from an
iron-based material or an aluminum alloy is not relevant to the Examiner's
rejection because the Examiner employed Kazumi to disclose a sealing ring
disposed between the housing body and the sealing plate (see Ans. 3) and
not the material of the claimed housing. See Non-Final Act. 3.
In conclusion, because Appellant has not identified any particular
error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over
Yasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303, and Strauss.
Claims 4-10
With respect to the rejection of claims 4-7, 9, and 10, Appellant relies
on the arguments presented supra. See Br. 8. Therefore, for the same
reasons as discussed above, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 4-7,
9, and 10 over the combined teachings ofYasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303,
and Strauss.
As to the rejection of dependent claim 8, which depends indirectly
from claim 3, Appellant does not present any other substantive arguments
separate from the arguments presented supra. See Br. 7 (stating that,
"Ogawa ['322] ... fails to suggest further modifications that would result in
an apparatus as presently required by claim 3."); see also id. at 5, 6.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 8
as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro, Kazumi, Ogawa '303, Strauss, and
Ogawa '322.
7
Appeal2014-008321
Application 12/878,448
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8