Ex Parte Ziech et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2007

10610143 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES F. ZIECH, GLEN PERTERSON, and JAMES RIDGE
____________

Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 22, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and STUART S.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 12-13 and 15. Appellants withdraw, without
prejudice, its appeal of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 (Reply Br. 1). Claims 4, 10
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

2
and 14 have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
Appellants invented a differential carrier housing for use in a wheel
differential assembly, where the differential carrier housing includes a
hollow rib extending from a forward end to a reward end of the differential
carrier housing.
We need only discuss claims 2, and 5, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 read as follows:
1. A differential carrier housing, comprising:

a body disposed about an axis and having first and
second axial ends, said body configured to receive a pinion shaft,
an inter-axle differential, and an input shaft supported on an
input shaft bearing;

a radially extending flange extending from said body
proximate said second axial end of said body and configured for
connection to an axle housing; and,

a hollow rib extending from a forward end located on
said body rearward of said input shaft bearing to a rear end
located at said flange.

2. A differential carrier housing according to claim 1,
wherein said hollow rib has a constant wall thickness from said
forward end to said rear end.

5. A differential carrier housing according to claim 1,
wherein said rear end of said hollow rib is aligned with a bearing
support for a differential case of a wheel differential.

Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

3
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Christie; and claims 2, 3, 5, 7 to 9, 12-13 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christie in view of
Keller.
PRIOR ART
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Christie Re. 25,269 Oct. 13, 1962
Keller US 6,245,415 B1 Jun. 12, 2001

Appellants contend that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
improper because Christie does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations
recited in the claims. More specifically, the Appellants contend that Christie
fails to teach or otherwise disclose a differential carrier housing having a
hollow rib with a constant wall thickness from the forward end of the rib to
the rear end of the rib (Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner contends that the rib
of Christie has a constant wall thickness from the forward end to the rear end
as seen in Figure 2 (Answer 4 and 15).
The Appellants further contend that Christie fails to teach the hollow
rib aligned with a bearing support for a differential case of a wheel
differential (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner contends that the hollow rib is
aligned with a bearing support 34 for an output shaft 45 of the differential
case (Answer 4).
Appellants contend that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
improper because the cited references fail to teach or suggest every
limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, the Appellants contend
that Figure 1 of Christie relied on by the Examiner to illustrate the rib shows
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

4
the structure of the differential housing in a plan view. The Appellants
further contend that there is no depth in this view that would allow anyone to
know whether the rib extends from a forward end to a rearward end (Br. 5)
or the relative location on the rib with respect to the input shaft bearing, or
with respect to a bearing support for a differential case of a wheel
differential (Br. 6). The Examiner contends that although Christie makes no
specific reference to the structure of the rib in Figure 1, the use of ribs on
gear housings are well known in the art for structural support and cooling
means (Answer 11). Therefore, since ribs are well known in the art, the
unreferenced structure (above the label 10) in Figure 1 of Christie is treated
as a rib. The Examiner admits Christie lacks a specific mention to the rib or
whether the rib is hollow, and relies on Keller to teach a casing with hollow
ribs. The Examiner states “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Christie to employ a
hollow rib . . . in view of Keller in order to rigidify the housing for structural
integrity” (Answer 6).
We reverse.
ISSUE
There are three issues on appeal. First, whether Christie discloses a
rib that has a constant wall thickness from the forward end to the rear end.
Second, whether Christie discloses a rib that is aligned with a bearing
support for a differential case of a wheel differential. Lastly, whether the
combination of Christie as modified by Keller teaches a rib that extends
from a forward end to a rear end of a differential carrier housing.
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented a differential carrier housing having a hollow rib
extending from a forward end located on the body rearward of the input
shaft bearing to a rear end located at the flange (Specification paragraph 6;
Fig. 4, element 64).
The use and location of the rib provides increased strength to the body
of the differential carrier housing, especially along the load path created
during operation of the axle assembly (Specification paragraph 7).
The rib is hollow in order to reduce the weight of the carrier housing
compared to conventional housings configured with solid ribs (Specification
paragraph 7).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Christie discloses a differential carrier housing having a hollow rib
(Fig. 2, where reference 67 resides) and meeting all the limitations of claim
1. The hollow rib shows a first thickness at the forward and rear ends, and a
varying thickness in the middle of the rib (Fig. 2).
Christie discloses the hollow rib (located above numerals 67 and 62 in
Fig. 2) is aligned (parallel) with a bearing support 45 for the output shaft 35.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Christie discloses a structure (Fig. 1, above label 10) on a differential
carrier housing meeting all the limitations of claim 1 except for the structure
as a hollow rib extending from a forward end to a rear end of the housing
body.
Keller teaches an automobile body casing with hollow ribs 16. Keller
describes using hollow ribs made of injected thermoplastic resin on the body
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

6
of automobile body parts to strengthen the structure (Keller, col. 3 ll. 1-31;
col. 4, ll. 1-18).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), it must be
shown that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or
under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover,
in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The hollow rib of Christie does not have a constant wall thickness
from the forward end to the rear end as recited in claim 2. As clearly seen in
Figure 2 of Christie, the middle portion of the hollow rib has a different
thickness as both the forward section and the rear end sections. Therefore,
the rib does not have a constant wall thickness. Accordingly, we determine
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

7
that the Examiner has not shown, either expressly described or under
principles of inherency, that each element of the claim is found.
The rear end of the hollow rib is aligned with a bearing support.
However, the rib is aligned with a bearing support of the output shaft not a
bearing support for a differential case of a wheel differential, as required by
claim 5. The bearing support of the output shaft is used to support the
output shaft and is located within the differential case. In no way can the
bearing support of the output shaft be construed to support the differential
case. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not shown, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, that each element of
the claim is found. On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2 and 5 under § 102(b). Since claims 7 and 15
contain the same limitations as claim 5, and claims 8 and 12 contain the
same limitations as claim 2, it follows that those claims were not properly
rejected under § 102(b) over Christie.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner premised the rejection on Christie showing a rib that
extends from a forward end to a rear end of a differential carrier housing.
Assuming arguendo that the structure identified by the Examiner is a rib, the
Figure 1 relied upon by the Examiner is a plain view of the differential
carrier and there is no depth in this view that would allow anyone to know
whether the structure identified by the Examiner as a rib extends for a
forward end to rear end. In addition, the structure identified by the
Examiner as a rib in Figure 1, is not shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the
location of the rib being rearward of the input shaft bearing, as required by
claim 1, can not be ascertained. Keller is cited for the purpose of teaching a
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

8
hollow rib. Keller fails to cure the deficiencies of Christie, because it does
not teach or suggest the orientation or the location of a rib on a differential
carrier housing. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has failed to
show how the cited references teach or suggest each and every claim
limitation of the claimed invention. On the record before us, it follows that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). Since claims 2, 3, 5,
7-9, 12, 13, and 15 are narrower than claim 1, it follows that those claims
were not properly rejected under § 103(a) over Christie and Keller.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that Christie does not
meet the claims limitation of claim 2 and anticipate a hollow rib having a
“constant wall thickness from said forward end to said rearward end.” The
Appellants have also shown that Christie does not meet the claim limitations
of claim 5 and anticipate a hollow rib “aligned with a bearing support for a
differential case of a wheel differential.”
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that Christie as
modified by Keller do not teach or suggest each and every claim limitation
so as to result in the claim 1 requirement for “a hollow rib extending from a
forward end located on said body rearward of said input shaft bearing to a
rear end located at said flange.”
Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 12-13 and 15 is
reversed.
REVERSED

hh

Dykema Gossett, PLLC
Suite 300
39577 Woodward Avenue
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304