Ex Parte Patrascu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 6, 2016

12850070 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016)

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3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 5, 8, 12, 16, 20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