Ex Parte Williams

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2018

14217984 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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.
14/217,984 03/18/2014 Rickey L. Williams 83391691 6180
28395 7590 02/14/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MOUBRY, JAMES G
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2018 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICKEY L. WILLIAMS1
Appeal 2017-003069
Application 14/217,984
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-6 and 10-22. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the applicant, pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and the real party in interest. See Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003069
Application 14/217,984
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is shown below.
1. A compression ring for an engine piston
comprising:
an upper face and a lower face;
an inner face positioned between the upper and
lower faces along an inner diameter of the ring, wherein the
upper face, the lower face, and the inner face cooperate with an
annular groove in the piston; and
an outer face positioned between the upper and
lower faces along an outer diameter of the ring for cooperation
with a bore in a cylinder, the outer face formed by a smooth
continuous curve along an axial direction of the ring, the curve
having first and second convex surf aces connected by a
concave surface;
wherein a first radius of the first convex surface is
equal to a second radius of the second convex surface; and
wherein the concave surface has a third radius, the
third radius being less than half of the first radius.
Br. 12 (Claims Appendix, 1).
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,554,289, iss. May 22, 1951) and
Barenreuter (DE 102009036240 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2011).
Claims 10, 11,21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anderson, Barenreuter, and Higuchi (US 8,739,753 B2,
iss. June 3, 2014).
2 Appellant’s Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116, filed May 2, 2016, was
entered by the Examiner and overcame the rejection of claims 16 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Adv. Act., mailed May 13, 2016, at 3; Ans. 2-10
(grounds of rejection on appeal are the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103).
2
Appeal 2017-003069
Application 14/217,984
ANALYSIS
Claims 16 and 12—20
Rejected Over Anderson and Bdrenreuter
The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches the compression ring of
independent claims 1,13, and 18 with convex surfaces 7, 8 (sections, claim
18) with a radius of curvature that is greater than the radius of curvature of a
concave surface/section 9 connecting convex surfaces or sections 7, 8. Final
Act. 5-6, 7-8, 10. The Examiner relies on Barenreuter to teach piston ring 1
with convex sections 6, 7 connected by concave groove 8 with radius r2 that
is less than half of radius rl of convex surfaces 6, 7. Id. at 6, 8, 10. The
Examiner reasons that making Anderson’s piston ring concave surface 9
with less than half of the radius of convex surfaces 7, 8 would “provid[e]
more of a contact surface between the piston ring and the cylinder.” Id.
Appellant argues that Anderson’s compression ring has convex and
concave surfaces with equivalent radii of curvature, and Barenreuter teaches
a ring having three different radii of curvature. Br. 5. Appellant argues that
decreasing the concave radius of curvature of Anderson would increase the
radius of curvature and contact area of the convex regions with a piston wall,
thereby increasing frictional drag and reducing oil cavity 10. Id. at 7-8.
We agree with the Examiner that Anderson teaches convex surfaces 7,
8 having the same radius of not greater than about .045 inches. Anderson,
2:7-11. We also agree with the Examiner that Barenreuter teaches convex
surfaces 6, 7 having radii of curvature Fradi, Frad2 that are greater than the
radius of curvature of the concave surface that connects convex surfaces 6, 7
in Figure 3, as the Examiner illustrates with annotations on Figure 3 of
Barenreuter in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-003069
Application 14/217,984
We cannot say, however, that Figure 3 of Barenreuter, as relied on by
the Examiner, evidences the claimed ratio of a radius of the convex surfaces
to a radius of the concave surface of more than two to one. The “patent
drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not
be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent
on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d
951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, as to such a specific relationship between
the depicted radii, we have no disclosure of any dimensions of the convex or
concave surfaces or that Figure 3 of Barenreuter is drawn to scale. Nor is
there an English language translation of Barenreuter on which to rely.
Even if Barenreuter taught the claimed ratio, we are not persuaded
that a skilled artisan would use this ratio in Anderson “to facilitate providing
more of a contact surface between the piston ring and the cylinder,” as the
Examiner reasons. Final Act. 6, 8, 10 (emphasis added); Ans. 12. Anderson
teaches a radius of curvature for convex surfaces 7, 8 that provides a hair­
line contact 12 with cylinder wall 1 to provide larger pockets 13 for oil on
either side of hair-line contact 12, facilitate high pressure of the ring element
against wall 1, and reduce frictional drag. Anderson, 2:4^11. Anderson thus
teaches to minimize the contact surface between convex surfaces 7, 8 of
piston ring 4 and cylinder wall 1 rather than to increase the contact surface,
as the Examiner proposes to do. Br. 7-8; Final Act. 6; Ans. 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that decreasing the
concave radius of curvature in Anderson would require an increase to the
convex radius. Br. 7. A decrease in the radius of curvature of the inwardly
curved (concave) surface 9 could result in a reduction of the axial thickness
of Anderson’s ring 4 by bringing convex surfaces 7, 8 closer together.
4
Appeal 2017-003069
Application 14/217,984
In either case, we are not persuaded that it would have been obvious
to modify Anderson so that outwardly curved (convex) surfaces 7, 8 have a
radius of curvature that is more than twice the radius of curvature of
inwardly curved (concave) surface 9 to “provid[e] more of a contact surface
between the piston ring and the cylinder” as the Examiner proposes. Final
Act. 6, 8, 10. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 and 12-20.
Claims 10, 11, 21, and 22
Rejected Over Anderson, Bdrenreuter, and Higuchi
The Examiner’s reliance on Higuchi to teach tangent lines as recited
in dependent claims 10, 11,21, and 22 does not cure the above-noted
deficiency in the articulated combination of Anderson and Barenreuter as to
claims 1 and 13 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 10, 11,21, and 22.
DECISION
We reverse the prior art rejections of claims 1-6 and 10-22.
REVERSED
5