Ex Parte Hamidieh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2009

11501548 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOUSSEF HAMIDIEH, PHILIP BARLAS, JAMES POSPISIL,
PRASHANTH MAGADI, AND CHANDRA JALLURI
____________

Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 February 24, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 16-21. Claim 16 is

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548

illustrative:
16. A structurally tuned vibration based checking system for
detecting anomalies in a movable component of an assembly prior to the
component being installed in the assembly, the assembly having modal
frequencies, the component having at least one assembly anomaly frequency
that is a function of a speed of operation of the component in the assembly at
which anomalies in the component are detectable, the at least one assembly
anomaly frequency is within a predetermined frequency range of the
assembly, the checking system comprising:

a first actuator operable to operate the component at one or more
predetermined speeds, the component having at least one checking system
anomaly frequency that is a function of the speed of operation of the
component in the checking system, the at least one checking system
anomaly frequency being different than the at least one assembly anomaly
frequency;

a tuned structure for supporting the component while the component
is being operated by the first actuator, the structure tuned based on said at
least one checking system anomaly frequency such that at least a portion of
the checking system has at least one modal frequency within a
predetermined frequency range of the checking system, the predetermined
frequency range of the checking system including the at least one checking
system anomaly frequency; and a sensor for measuring values of a response
parameter of the checking system while the first actuator operates the
component.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims (Ans. 3):
Pomernacki 4,252,023 Feb. 24, 1981
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system for detecting
anomalies in a movable component, such as a gear, before the component is
installed in an assembly. The system comprises a first actuator, such as a
motor, for operating the component at one or more predetermined speeds,
2
Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548

and a tuned structure which supports the component while it is being
operated on by the actuator.
Appealed claims 16-18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pomernacki. Appealed claims 19 and
20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pomernacki.2
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, the two groups of claims
separately rejected by the Examiner stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well
founded and in accord with current patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s factual determination that
“Pomernacki discloses a checking system for detecting
anomalies (deviations) in a movable component (gear 10 or
12) prior to the gear being installed in an assembly, the
checking system comprising a first actuator (drive motor 40)
to operate (rotate) the component at a predetermined speed
(col. 2, line 67), the component having a checking system
anomaly frequency (tooth-2-tooth frequency) that is a
function of the speed of operation (rotation) of the
component in the checking system”

2 Appellants have not contested the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 on
the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1-17 of US Patent 7,140,252. Accordingly, we will, perforce, sustain this
rejection.
3
Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548

(Ans. para. bridging 3-4). Nor have Appellants refuted the Examiner’s
factual finding that the checking system of Pomernacki comprises a structure
(42) for supporting the component while it is being rotated by the first
actuator, wherein the structure has a modal (resonant) frequency that is
approximately the same as the anomaly frequency (tooth-to-tooth frequency
(see col. 2, ll. 8-13)). Also, the supporting structure of the reference is
“tuned” to the checking system anomaly frequency since it is resonant at the
anomaly frequency.
Appellants maintain that Pomernacki “does not disclose the resiliently
supportive spindle housing 26 having at least one modal frequency within a
predetermined frequency range” (Br. 4, last para.). However, inasmuch as
Pomernacki discloses that spindle housing 26 has a modal frequency of
approximately 700 cycles per second (col. 2, ll. 8-17), we agree with the
Examiner that the reference system “necessarily has at least one modal
frequency within an arbitrary frequency range about the modal frequency”
(Ans. 6, penultimate para.). The Examiner properly reasons that the
recitation of a predetermined frequency range does not impart any particular
structure to the claimed apparatus.
As for the claim recitation that “the at least one checking system
anomaly frequency being different than the at least one assembly anomaly
frequency”, this is tantamount to a statement of intended use that is not
accorded patentable weight. The assembly in which the component is
ultimately used is not part of the checking system whose structure is defined
by the appealed claims.
Appellants also contend that there is no mention of a checking system
anomaly in Pomernacki. However, insofar as such anomaly is described by
4
Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548

Appellants as the frequency at which anomalies in the component cause
undesirable noise or vibration, we agree with the Examiner that the tooth-to-
tooth frequency of the referenced apparatus constitutes a “checking system
anomaly frequency” by Appellants’ own definition. Furthermore, since
Pomernacki discloses that spindle housing 26 has a modal frequency that is
substantially the same as the tooth-to-tooth frequency of the gear, we concur
with the Examiner that the reference “discloses a checking system having an
anomaly (tooth-to-tooth) frequency, and a portion of the checking system
having at least one modal (resonant) frequency that is substantially the same
as the anomaly frequency [and also] within a small frequency range of the
anomaly frequency” (Ans. 7, last full sentence).
Significantly, as emphasized by the Examiner, Appellants have not
pointed to any particular structure defined by the claimed checking system
that is not disclosed by Pomernacki. Nor have Appellants pointed to any
particular function of the claimed system that the system of Pomernacki is
not capable of performing. In the words of the Examiner, Appellants “fail[]
to show any structural difference between the claimed invention and the
prior art” (Ans. 9, first para.).
Regarding the Examiner’s separate § 103 rejection of claims 19 and
20, Appellants do not present a separate substantive argument, but state that
“claims 19-20 are grouped with claims 16-18 and stand or fall with those
claims” (Br. 7, last para.).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claim is
affirmed.

5
Appeal 2009-1614
Application 11/501,548

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

ssl

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
FAIRLANE PLAZA SOUTH, SUITE 800
330 TOWN CENTER DRIVE
DEARBORN, MI 48126

6