Gates Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020006673 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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