11343044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Yoshimoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2013

11343044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SHINTAROU YOSHIMOTO and MASAHIKO KONNO ____________________ Appeal 2011-011753 Application 11/343,044 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011753 Application 11/343,044 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Konno ‘237 (US 2003/0139237 A1; pub. Jul. 24, 2003), Ballhause (DE 4310306 A1; pub. Oct. 6, 1994), and Konno ‘762 (US 2004/0058762 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2004). Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A sliding contact guide comprising: an elongated guide surface on a front side of the guide for sliding contact with a flexible transmission medium traveling along the direction of elongation of the guide surface; and a unitary, injection-molded, synthetic resin guide body provided on a back side of the guide surface and supporting the guide surface, the guide body comprising a pair of elongated members spaced from each other and extending along the direction of elongation of the guide surface, a first of said elongated members being located adjacent the guide surface, and the second of said elongated members being spaced from said first elongated member in a direction opposite to the direction in which said guide surface faces; the guide body having first and second ends spaced from each other along the direction of elongation of the guide surface, and including a mounting hole adjacent said first end for receiving a mounting shaft on which the guide body can pivot, said second of said elongated members having a tensioner abutting part protruding in said direction opposite to the direction in which said guide surface faces, and spaced from said mounting hole in the direction of elongation of the guide Appeal 2011-011753 Application 11/343,044 3 surface, whereby a plunger of a tensioner, by abutting said tensioner abutting part, can exert a torque on the guide body urging the guide body against a chain sliding on said guide surface; the guide body comprising a web structure connecting said elongated members to each other and extending from a location adjacent said first end of the guide body to a location adjacent said second end of the guide body, said web structure having opposite sides facing in directions perpendicular to the direction of elongation of the guide surface; the unitary, injection-molded, guide body also comprising an array of reinforcing ribs formed on each of said opposite sides of the web structure, each said array of reinforcing ribs being unitary with said web structure and also connecting the elongated members to each other, each said array of reinforcing ribs, together with the elongated members forming a truss-structure composed of Y-shaped truss components, each Y-shaped component being composed of a leg and two arms, the legs and arms having substantially the same width, each leg being connected to one of the elongated members, and extending substantially in normal relationship from said one of the elongated members, and each arm being substantially straight and extending from a leg connected to one of the elongated members to a leg connected to the other of the elongated members; and at least one of said Y-shaped truss components being located between said first elongated member and the protruding, tensioner abutting part of the second elongated member and having its leg connected directly to said tensioner abutting part. OPINION Appellants argue claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16 as a group. See Br. 17- 19. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-4, 7-11, and 14-16 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-011753 Application 11/343,044 4 The Examiner finds that Konno ‘237 discloses the majority of the features recited in claim 1, but does not disclose the Y-shaped configuration of the truss components as claimed. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner finds that Balhause discloses a tensioner including Y-shaped truss components and reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the truss components of the tensioner of Konno ‘237 to include a Y-shaped configuration in order to provide stress reduction and reduce failure due to excess tension in the truss components. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not have arrived at the modifications proposed by the Examiner because “the state of the art of webbed guides did not include y-shaped trusses.” Br. 17. Appellants acknowledge that Ballhause discloses a Y-shaped truss structure in a tensioner without a web, but argue that Ballhause does not provide any reason to include the Y-shaped truss structure in a tensioner having a webbed design. Id. Appellants argue that none of the cited references discuss the problems associated with the thick joints used in the prior art truss designs and that the rejection must be based on impermissible hindsight. Br. 17-18. Appellants further argue that the Examiner has not provided any reason for the proposed modifications. Br. 18-19. Appellants’ arguments regarding the prior art failing to provide any reason for the Examiner’s proposed modifications are not persuasive because there is no requirement that the prior art references themselves provide a reason for the proposed modifications. Appellants’ general allegation of hindsight does not explain why the proposed modifications are based solely on Appellants’ own disclosure. The Examiner finds, and Appellants acknowledge, that Ballhause discloses a tensioner having a Y- Appeal 2011-011753 Application 11/343,044 5 shaped truss configuration. Ans. 6; Br. 17. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have modified the trusses in the tensioner of Ballhause to include a Y-shaped configuration in order to provide stress reduction and reduce failure due to excess tension in the truss components. Ans. 7. Appellants do not provide any explanation regarding why one skilled in the art would not have appreciated that the Y-shaped truss configuration disclosed by Ballhause would provide stress reduction and reduce failure due to excess tension in the truss components as suggested by the Examiner. For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls