Gates CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 20212020006673 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/642,041 07/05/2017 William Fraser Lacy P17-028A 4100 26683 7590 08/02/2021 GATES CORPORATION IP LAW DEPT. 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 1400 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER LIU, HENRY Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): Erica.Halverson@gates.com alyssa.sandrowitz@gates.com patent@gates.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM FRASER LACY Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the Gates Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a synchronous drive system designed to maintain angular displacement timing error between first and second sprockets below 1.5 degrees peak to peak. Spec. 1:6–10, 2:23–28. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A synchronous belt drive system comprising: a first obround sprocket (10) having a toothed surface and at least one linear portion (16) disposed between two arcuate portions (14,15), the arcuate portions having a constant radius (Rl, R2), the linear portion having a predetermined length; a sprocket (300) having a toothed surface, the sprocket engaged to the first obround sprocket by an endless toothed member (200); and the first obround sprocket (10) having a magnitude and a phase such that an angular displacement timing error between the sprocket and the first obround sprocket is less than 1.5 degree peak to peak. Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lacy US 2008/0085799 A1 Apr. 10, 2008 Gajewski US 2010/0160100 A1 June 24, 2010 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 3–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lacy. II. Claims 2 and 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lacy and Gajewski. Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 3 III. Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gajewski and Lacy. OPINION Rejection I (Lacy) Claims 1 and 3–9 “The Examiner has the initial burden to set forth the basis for any rejection so as to put the patent applicant on notice of the reasons why the applicant is not entitled to a patent on the claim scope that he seeks — the so-called ‘prima facie case.’” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “The Board’s role in any [appeal from an Examiner’s rejection] is to, ‘on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)). Thus, although the Board’s review relates to patentability, the Board’s review is of the Examiner’s adverse decision, not necessarily the patentability of Appellant’s claims per se. Accordingly, a Board reversal of an Examiner’s adverse decision is not a pronouncement that any particular claim is patentable. The Examiner finds that Lacy discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including a sprocket and a first obround sprocket, but does not disclose “the first obround sprocket (10) having a magnitude and a phase such that an angular displacement timing error between the sprocket and the first obround sprocket is less than 1.5 degree peak to peak.”2 Final Act. 3 2 The sole inventor listed in the present Application and in the Lacy reference is Fraser Lacy, and Appellant’s Figures 1–13 and Figures 1–13 in Lacy use the same reference numbers and appear substantially similar. Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 4 (quoting Br. 15 (Claims App.)). To address this deficiency, the Examiner finds Lacy “teaches the result effective variable of an angular displacement timing error since the [o]bround sprocket would cause a slight timing difference between it and the driven sprocket as it rotates.” Id. at 3. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons it would have been obvious “to optimize the angular displacement timing error to reduce timing errors between the crankshaft and camshaft while reducing belt vibration.” Id. Appellant argues that Lacy fails to recognize angular displacement timing error as a result effective variable, and, instead focuses on modifying a different parameter. Br. 10 (citing Lacy ¶¶ 45, 51, claims 1, 6). Specifically, Appellant argues, “[t]he result-effective variable taught by LACY is . . . the timing of the belt entry point[, and t]he effect taught by LACY is cancelling torque fluctuations.” Id. Thus, Appellant contends, (i) Lacy uses a different variable than the variables used in claim 1 to (ii) achieve a different result than the result achieved in claim 1. See id. In response, the Examiner finds “[Lacy] discloses the result effective variable feature of some degree peak to peak angular displacement timing error since it has all the claimed structural features of the obround sprocket, including a magnitude and a phase and thus some angular displacement timing error amount or none.” Ans. 3. The Examiner takes the position that Lacy discloses angular displacement timing error between its sprockets because Lacy discloses controlling “angular vibration, peak (degree),” and this term is merely another name for angular displacement timing error. Id. at 3–4 (citing Lacy ¶ 81, Figs. 11, 12). Additionally, Appellant’s description of Figures 1–13 appears substantially similar to Lacy’s description of corresponding Figures 1–13. See Spec. 5– 16; Lacy ¶¶ 26–86. Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 5 The Examiner’s finding on this point is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant’s Specification states, “[t]iming error is the positional discrepancy between a driver and a driven shaft caused by random factors such as vibration, component inaccuracy and elastic deformation.” Spec. 16:29–31. Thus, angular vibration of a particular component is merely one of multiple factors that contribute to angular displacement timing error—angular vibration and angular displacement timing error are not merely different words for the same parameter. Indeed, the Y-axis of Appellant’s Figure 11 is labeled “Angular Vibration, Peak (Degree)” just like the Y-axis of Figure 11 in Lacy. In contrast to Figure 11, Appellant includes Figure 17 with a Y-axis labeled “Angular Displacement Peak-to-Peak (Deg),” which Appellant’s Specification explains is the same as angular displacement timing error. See Spec. 18:28–30. The fact that the Specification uses two different figures, with two different labels, for these parameters highlights that there is a difference between angular vibration of a component and angular displacement timing error. Accordingly, in light of the Specification, “angular vibration” and “angular displacement timing error” are considered to be different parameters. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that Lacy is concerned with a different result than angular displacement timing error as recited in claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner finds “[Lacy] does not need to be relied upon for one of ordinary skill in the art or basic knowledge of a typical car engine to recognize that degree peak to peak angular displacement timing error is a result effective variable.” Ans. 5. The Examiner then discusses the function of a car engine, without citation to the prior art, from page 5 to page 6 of the Answer. Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 6 However, the Examiner’s optimization rationale overlooks the fact that it is the magnitude and phase that are recited in claim 1 so as to achieve the angular displacement timing error in the recited range. Final Act. 3. The Final Office Action indicates that Lacy fails to disclose a magnitude and phase meeting the requirements of claim 1. See id. Thus, in claim 1, the variables that are left unaddressed by Lacy’s disclosure and which must be optimized for a particular effect are the magnitude and phase, and the recited range of angular displacement timing errors is the result of this optimization. Consequently, the Examiner’s alternative finding, in the Answer, that “[Lacy] does not need to be relied upon for one of ordinary skill in the art or basic knowledge of a typical car engine to recognize that degree peak to peak angular displacement timing error is a result effective variable” (Ans. 5), does not rationally underpin the Examiner’s optimization reasoning in the rejection of claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 3–9 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Lacy. Rejection II (Lacy and Gajewski) Claims 10–13, 16, and 17 In rejecting dependent claim 2 as unpatentable over Lacy and Gajewski, the Examiner relies on Gajewski to teach a second obround sprocket. Final Act. 7. Additionally, the Examiner states, “[Gajewski] as modified does teaches the result effective variable of an angular displacement timing error since the [obround] sprockets would cause a slight timing difference between the drive shaft and the driven shaft as it rotates.” Id. The Examiner then concludes, “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to optimize the angular displacement timing error to reduce timing errors Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 7 between the crankshaft and camshafts while reducing alternating belt tensions.” Id. at 8. Appellant argues “[Gajewski] does not supply any additional motivation to consider magnitude and phase as result-effective variables for optimizing timing error.” Br. 13. Appellant has the better position because the Examiner does not adequately explain why the mere existence of “a slight timing error” in a system, without recognition of the timing error or how it is affected by magnitude and phase, would have led to the optimization of magnitude and phase as recited in claim 2. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 2, or claims 10–13, 16, and 17 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Lacy and Gajewski. Claims 14 and 15 The Examiner’s application of Gajewski does not cure the aforementioned deficiency of Lacy vis-à-vis claim 1, from which claims 14 and 15 depend. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 as unpatentable over Lacy and Gajewski. Rejection III (Gajewski and Lacy) Claims 18–20 In rejecting independent claim 18 as unpatentable over Gajewski and Lacy, the Examiner again finds “[Gajewski] as modified teaches the result effective variable of an angular displacement timing error since the [obround] sprocket would cause a slight timing difference between the abround sprockets and the other sprockets connected by the belt as it rotates.” Final Act. 11. Similar to Rejection II, the Examiner relies on this finding to determine that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to optimize the angular Appeal 2020-006673 Application 15/642,041 8 displacement timing error to reduce timing errors between the crankshaft and camshafts while reducing belt vibration.” Id. For the same reason discussed above regarding Rejection II, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 18–20 as unpatentable over Gajewski and Lacy. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9 103 Lacy 1, 3–9 2, 10–17 103 Lacy, Gajewski 2, 10–17 18–20 103 Gajewski, Lacy 18–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation