Ex Parte Patrascu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 6, 201612850070 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/850,070 08/04/2010 113600 7590 01/08/2016 Brooks Kushman P,C, I Meritor Twenty Second Floor 1000 Town Center Southfield, MI 48075 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dumitru Florin Patrascu 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. MERIT100034PUS 9073 EXAMINER BINDA, GREGORY JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DUMITRU FLORIN PATRASCU and CHRISTOPHER STEELE1 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, ROBERT L. KINDER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17-24.2 App. Br. 2. Based on the Examiner's withdrawal of certain rejections,3 we limit our review to the rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 22, and 24 pursuant to the revised numbering scheme adopted by the Examiner. Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Arvinmeritor Technology, LLC." App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 8, 12, and 16 were allowed by the Examiner. See Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review (Sept. 7, 2012). 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 5, 8, 12, 16, 20 (renumbered), 23 (renumbered), and 25 (renumbered) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 4. Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention relates generally to a vehicle driveline yoke with a stiffness ring that more evenly distributes load forces. Spec. i-fi-f l, 2. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 9, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. We select independent claim 1 as illustrative. Claim 1 recites: 1. A yoke for a universal joint comprising: a body rotatable about an axis and having a pair of arms extending outwardly from said body to an end face adapted to receive a cross member; a hub portion extending out from said body in a direction opposite from said pair of arms, said hub portion including a splined bore configured to receive a driveshaft; and an increased diameter portion extending radially outwardly from said body at least in regions of each of said arms such that said arms are located radially closer to said axis than an outer peripheral edge of said increased diameter portion, and wherein said hub portion, said pair of arms, and said increased diameter portion are integrally formed together with said body as a single-piece component. App. Br. 12, Claims App'x. 2 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 Examiner's Rejections The following rejections are before us for review. 4 1. Claims 9, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hopcraft (US 1,324,898, iss. Dec. 16, 1919). Ans. 5. 2. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hopcraft and Wagner et al., "Chapter 7 Driveshaft Attachment Methods," Universal Joint and Driveshaft Design Manual, AE- 7, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 209-11 (1979). 5 Id. 4 Claim 19 was "rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to depend from a claim previously set forth." Final Act. 2. Both the Examiner and Appellants have recognized this numbering mistake and Appellants' proposal to renumber claim 19 (App. Br. 5) was accepted by the Examiner. Ans. 3 ("Misnumbered claims 19 (second instance) - 24, have been renumbered 20-25."). See App. Br. 14 (listing two claim 19s ). We therefore treat second claim 19 as renumbered to claim 20 with original claims 20-24 now being claims 21-25 respectively. See App. Br. 14--15 (Claims App'x). 5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of renumbered claims 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 3, 4. See also Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review (Sept. 7, 2012) (indicating that claims 8, 12, and 16 were allowed). 3 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 Claims 1 and 9 ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, "a hub portion extending out from said body in a direction opposite from said pair of arms, said hub portion including a splined bore configured to receive a driveshaft." App. Br. 12, Claims App'x. (emphasis added). Claim 9 similarly recites "a hub portion extending outwardly from said first opposing end face, said hub portion including a bore adapted to receive a driveshaft." See id. at 13 (emphasis added). Although claim 1 is rejected as anticipated by Hopcraft and claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Hopcraft and Wagner, the Examiner relies on the same structure of Hopcraft as either disclosing (claim 9) or teaching or suggesting (claim 1) the claim limitations set forth above. See Final Act. 2- 5. Because we determine that Hop craft does not teach or suggest a bore capable of receiving a driveshaft, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of both claims. The Examiner relies on Hopcraft' s one piece yoke as disclosing a universal joint. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Hopcraft shows a hub portion C extending from body E with the "hub portion defined by a first outer diameter and including a bore ... to receive a shaft A." Id. The Examiner states "that neither a driveshaft nor use with such is recited in the rejected claims." Id. at 6. Later, in addressing the rejection of claim 14, the Examiner finds "Hopcraft does in fact show, and thus disclose[s], a driveshaft, driveshaftA." Id. at 7. Appellants allege that "Hopcraft does not disclose or teach a yoke assembly for a driveshaft as claimed," because "Hopcraft describes a socket structure C for a stem A of a lifting jack," which is neither configured to 4 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 (claim 1) nor adapted to (claim 9) receive a driveshaft. App. Br. 5, 6, 8; Reply Br. 2, 5. Appellants contend that Hopcraft is a lifting jack with a shaft or stem and this stem (A) cannot be considered a "driveshaft" under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See App. Br. 5. Thus, the Examiner's finding that Hopcraft teaches a yoke assembly with a bore for receiving a driveshaft is not supported. See id. at 6. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" and "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants contend that the term "driveshaft" is a well-known term of art as it relates to vehicle drivelines. See App. Br. 5. Appellants quote an engineering dictionary definition of the term "driveshaft" as "[a] shaft which transmits power from a motor or engine to the rest of a machine."6 The Specification establishes that the claimed driveshaft is for a vehicle driveline. See Spec. i-fi-12 ("vehicle drivelines"), 8 ("driveline for a heavy- duty vehicle"). Based on the foregoing, we determine the Examiner's interpretation of driveshaft to encompass a manually rotatable stem for a lifting jack is not reasonable in this case. We likewise determine that the Examiner's finding that Hopcraft teaches a (splined) bore configured (adapted) to receive a driveshaft as required by claims 1 and 9 is not adequately supported. Hopcraft "relates to handles for lifting jacks" through manual rotation of "a detachable handle 6 App Br. 5 (quoting the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Engineering, McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc, 1994). 5 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 having a stem or shaft of such a length as to permit [] the jack being operated when it is positioned beneath a car. ... " Hopcraft, 1, 11. 8-25. The Examiner does not persuasively establish that the bore of Hopcraft's yoke assembly is either adapted to or configured to receive a driveshaft under a broad but reasonable construction of that term. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9. We likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 2--4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 21, and 24, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 9. Claim 14 Independent claim 14 recites the structure of "a driveshaft rotatable about an axis and receiving a driving input from a vehicle power source." App. Br. 13. The Examiner again relies on the stem A of Hopcraft's lifting jack as disclosing this claim limitation. Ans. 7. Appellants contend "Hopcraft does not disclose or teach any type of structure that receives driving input from a vehicle power source." App. Br. 7. For the reasons set forth above, we disagree with the Examiner's findings. The Examiner does not persuasively establish Hopcraft' s stem qualifies as a driveshaft, or a driveshaft capable of "receiving a driving input from a vehicle power source" as claimed. For these reasons do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14, or claims 15, 17-19, 22, and 24, which are directly or indirectly dependent from claim 14. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 11, 13-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 1--4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal2013-004026 Application 12/850,070 DECISION As such, we reverse the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 22, and 24. REVERSED tkl 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation