Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2012

10922130 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MASAO YAMAZAKI, MASAO TAKAHASHI,
YASUHIRO HIKITA, JUNICHI NATSUME, TOSHIMITSU SHIBA,
TAKASHI KIKUCHI, TATSUHIRO TERADA, and TAKASHI SHIMURA
____________

Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Masao Yamazaki et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 9, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hahn (US 5,009,522; iss.
Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130

2
Apr. 23, 1991) and Vicars (US 2003/0206671 A1; pub. Nov. 6, 2003). The
Examiner has allowed claims 7, 8, and 10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a sliding bearing in which
one of split bearing halves is formed with an oil groove disposed along its
sliding surface which allows a lubricating oil to flow therethrough.
Substitute Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent
claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A sliding bearing, comprising:
a first split bearing half having a sliding surface including
an oil groove for channeling a lubricating oil in a
circumferential direction within the oil groove; and
a second split bearing half, the first and second split
bearing halves including crush reliefs at a junction area along
the sliding surface between the first and second split bearing
halves, the crush reliefs forming a cut extending throughout the
lengths of the first and second bearing halves and having at
least one straight side surface extending from the junction area
between the first and second split bearing halves to the sliding
surface for allowing both split bearing halves to deform radially
inward,
wherein the oil groove is formed over the entire
circumferential extent of the first split bearing half, the oil
groove extending through the crush reliefs to be open to the
junction area between the split bearing halves and having a
bottom which is formed so that a portion disposed toward the
junction area as considered in the circumferential direction of
the crush relief is located closer to the center position of the
Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130

3
sliding surface as compared with a central portion thereof, thus
reducing the channel area of the oil groove toward the junction
area.
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner articulated
adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify an oil groove of a
sliding bearing of Hahn, in light of the teaching of Vicars, so that the oil
groove is formed over an entire circumferential extent of a first split bearing
half and extends through a crush relief to be open to a junction area between
split bearing halves.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that Hahn discloses a sliding bearing
having an oil groove (44) but does not disclose that the oil groove is formed
over an entire circumferential extent of a split bearing half (20) and extends
through a crush relief (36) to be open to a junction area (42). Ans. 3-4. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the oil groove of Hahn
to extend over an entire circumferential extent of the split bearing half and
extend through the crush relief to be open to the junction area, based on the
teaching in Vicars that providing an oil groove open to a junction area
ensures that two lubricant reservoirs created by beveled areas on either end
of a split bearing half are provided with similar quantities of lubricant under
similar pressure. Ans. 4 (citing Vicars, para. [0026]).
Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130

4
Hahn discloses that prior art journal bearings used in internal
combustion engines typically comprise a pair of semicircular inserts or
bearing shells having recesses formed at a split line between the two inserts
or shells, and a lubricant supply groove formed in the upper insert or shell
which extends along the entire inner circumference of the upper insert or
shell “resulting in a substantial flow path of lubricant to the split line and a
correspondingly substantial oil pressure penalty which affects the engine’s
entire lubricating system.” Hahn, col. 1, ll. 12-39. Hahn proposes to solve
the “oil pressure penalty” problem by centering the lubricant supply groove
on an axis eccentric from the central axis of the bearing so that the groove
tapers from a point of maximum depth at the center of the upper bearing
shell to terminate within an eccentric end portion of the shell that lies
intermediate the ends of a concentric central portion of the shell and the ends
of the shell.1 Hahn, col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 4. Hahn discloses that this
configuration of the bearing shell and groove forms lubricant metering
orifices that “control the flow of lubricant from the groove to the split line
thereby reducing the pressure loss within the oil gallery of the engine.”
Hahn, col. 2, ll. 4-9. Hahn discloses that the result of its configuration is “a
reduction in oil pressure loss normally associated with journal bearings
having lubricant supply grooves which extend to the split line, providing an

1 The bearing surface 30 of bearing shell 20 is divided circumferentially into
a concentric central portion 32 and a pair of eccentric end portions 36, which
extend the entire axial length of the bearing shell 20 to provide a radial relief
at the split line 24. Hahn, col. 2, l. 54 – col. 3, l. 2; figs. 4, 5.
Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130

5
increase in efficiency since less engine power is required to maintain oil
pressure.” Hahn, col. 3, ll. 25-29.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification to extend
Hahn’s oil groove to the junction area would destroy Hahn’s purpose of
providing lubricant metering orifices at the termination of the groove within
the eccentric end portions in order to control lubricant flow to reduce
pressure loss. App. Br. 5-6. The Examiner determined that the proposed
modification would not destroy the operation of the Hahn bearing because
Hahn states that it is possible to vary the distance the groove extends in the
bearing clearance created by the eccentric end portions so as to control the
rate of lubricant flow through the bearing. Ans. 6 (citing Hahn, col. 4, ll. 2-
11). See also Hahn, col. 3, ll. 33-37 (“A principle advantage of the present
invention is the ability to tailor the lubricant flow rate through the bearing 18
by varying the eccentricity of axis 46 to change the groove termination point
and, consequently, the size of metering orifices 48.”). We do not understand
the teaching in Hahn to vary the termination point so as to control the
lubricant flow rate as a teaching or suggestion to extend the groove
termination point all the way to split line, i.e., to the junction area and over
the entire extent of the circumference of the bearing half. To do so would
result in the oil pressure loss problem that Hahn is designed to avoid.
Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification to extend the lubricant
supply groove 44 of Hahn to the junction area is not based on rational
underpinnings. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
Appeal 2010-010185
Application 10/922,130

6
independent claim 1, and claims 2-6, 9, and 11 depending therefrom, as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hahn and Vicars.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify the oil groove of the sliding bearing of Hahn, in light of
the teaching of Vicars, so that the oil groove is formed over the entire
circumferential extent of the first split bearing half and extends through the
crush relief to be open to the junction area between the split bearing halves.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9,
and 11.

REVERSED

hh