Ex Parte Van Der EndeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201612517764 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/517,764 02/04/2010 26710 7590 03/30/2016 QUARLES & BRADYLLP Attn: IP Docket 411 E. WISCONSIN A VENUE SUITE 2350 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Remco Van Der Ende 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. 790063.00282 9647 EXAMINER LIU,HENRYY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): pat-dept@quarles.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REMCO VAN DER ENDE Appeal2014-003219 Application 12/517,764 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Remco Van Der Ende (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15. Claims 7 and 13 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a sprocket wheel comprising two synthetic wheel parts. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2013-003219 Application 12/517,764 1. A sprocket wheel comprising: at least two synthetic wheel parts joined by a fastener, at least one of said at least two wheel parts including a hub part, at least a portion of a gear ring and a body part connecting the hub part and gear ring, the body part having a central plane forming a plane of symmetry of the body part, at least one fastener housing divided over the at least two wheel parts, and a fastener hole extending along a centerline situated in the central plane for receiving a fastener, and at least one gear ring opening extending through the gear rmg, wherein the body part further includes a recess accessible from a side of the body part to a fastener, the recess being situated in line between the gear ring opening and the fastener hole and having a wider passage than a passage of the gear ring opening, said recess receiving said fastener and aligning the fastener received in the recess with the fastener hole along the centerline. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bowen Bos Fomasiere us 1,721,066 us 5,322,478 us 5,848,947 REJECTIONS July 16, 1929 June 21, 1994 Dec. 15, 1998 I. Claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bos. Ans. 4 (rejecting claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 as a New Ground of Rejection); see also Final Act. 2 2 Appeal2013-003219 Application 12/517,764 (rejecting claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as anticipated by Bos). II. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bos and Fomasiere. Ans. 8 (rejecting claim 10 as a New Ground of Rejection). III. Claims 1---6, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bos and Bowen. 1 Final Act. 4. IV. Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bos, Bowen, and Fomasiere.2 Final Act. 7. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Bos discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 1. Ans. 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 2 of Bos shows "at least one fastener housing divided over the at least two wheel parts." Id. at 4. In the Examiner's annotated version of Bos' Figure 2 included in the Answer, the Examiner identifies Bos' ribs as corresponding to the claimed fastener housing. Id. at 5. Bos does not state what these ribs are; however, Bos states that each of the wheel half parts are "manufactured in a manner known per se by an injection molding process." Bos 2:6-8. We understand the ribs shown in Figure 2 to be formed as part of the blow 1 Although in the Answer the Examiner states that "Claim 1 is now rejected under Bos" (Ans. 10), the Examiner did not explicitly withdraw this rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is before us on appeal. 2 Although the Examiner implies this rejection is withdrawn (see Ans. 9 and 10), the Examiner did not explicitly withdraw this rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is before us on appeal. 3 Appeal2013-003219 Application 12/517,764 molding process to provide structural integrity to the wheel half parts, as the provision of such ribs is part of the known blow molding processes. Appellant argues that Bos fails to teach a fastener housing divided over the at least two wheel parts. Appeal Br. 5---6. Appellant is correct. Claim 1 requires wheel parts and a fastener housing divided over the at least two wheel parts. See Appeal Br. A-1. Thus, portions of the wheel parts themselves cannot be fairly read on the fastener housing. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, which depend therefrom. Rejection II Claim 10 depends from claim 1. F omasiere does not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 10 for the reason discussed supra. Rejection III Bowen does not cure the deficiencies in Bos discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1- 6, 8, and 12 as unpatentable over Bos and Bowen. Rejection IV As discussed supra, neither Bowen nor Fomasiere cure the deficiency in Bos. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-11 as unpatentable over Bos, Bowen, and Fomasiere. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-12, 14, and 15 are REVERSED. 4 Appeal2013-003219 Application 12/517,764 REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation