Don Loveless et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 10, 2020

12176363 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2020)

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.
12/176,363 07/19/2008 Don L. Loveless 17785-008US 2467
31855 7590 07/10/2020
PHILIP O. POST
INDEL, INC.
PO BOX 157
RANCOCAS, NJ 08073
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DON L. LOVELESS, VALERY I. RUDNEV,
JOSEPH M. O’HAIRE, RANDALL J. MINNICK, and
BRIAN L. MARSHALL

Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. 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 real party in interest as Inductoheat
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention generally
relates to electric induction heat treatment of gears and gear-like electrically
conductive articles, and in particular to such heat treatment for case or
surface hardening of such gear and gear-like articles.” Spec. ¶ 2.

CLAIMS
Claims 1, 17, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An electric induction heating apparatus for heating a gear-
like article having an annular region around a central axis of one
or more discrete protrusions from a surface of the gear-like
article, the apparatus comprising:
a single tum induction coil disposed above or below the
gear-like article for the annular region of one or more discrete
protrusions to face the single tum induction coil, the single tum
induction coil comprising:
an outer coil segment having an outer coil segment face
opposing, at least in part, a radially outer region of the annular
region of the one or more discrete protrusions, the outer coil
segment having an outer coil segment outer end and an outer coil
segment inner end, the outer coil segment arranged to inductively
heat the radially outer region of the one or more discrete
protrusions;
an inner coil segment having an inner coil segment face
opposing, at least in part, a radially inner region of the annular
region of the one or more discrete protrusions, the inner coil
segment having an inner coil segment outer end and an inner coil
segment inner end, the outer coil segment radially disposed
further away from the central axis than the inner coil segment,
the inner coil segment arranged to inductively heat the radially
inner region of the one or more discrete protrusions; and
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

3
a transition coil segment connected between the inner end
of the outer coil segment and the inner end of the inner coil
segment, the transition coil segment having a transition coil
segment face opposing a transverse region of the annular region
of the one or more discrete protrusions to inductively heat the
transverse region of at least a partial length of a face width of the
one or more discrete protrusions wherein the transverse region is
located between the radially outer region and the radially inner
region of the one or more discrete protrusions; and
an alternating current source connected between the outer
end of the outer coil segment and the outer end of the inner coil
segment of the single turn induction coil.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 13, 17–19, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pusateri.2
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 14, 16, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pusateri in view of Mucha 551.3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pusateri in view of Mucha 761.4
4. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pusateri in view of Mucha 551 and Denneen.5
DISCUSSION
With respect to the independent claims, the Examiner finds:
Regarding claim[s] 1, 17 and 22, Pusateri et al discloses
an apparatus and method of use for a inductor 10 for axially and
circumferentially heating a rotating workpiece comprising a
single turn induction coil (abstract, lines 1-2) having a terminal

2 Pusateri et al., US 4,251,707, iss. Feb. 17, 1981.
3 Mucha et al., US 4,855,551, iss. Aug. 8, 1989.
4 Mucha et al., US 4,728,761, iss. Mar. 1, 1988.
5 Denneen et al., US 2,167,798, iss. Aug. 1, 1939.
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

4
ends 12 and 14 connected to a source of alternating current for
energization (alternating current source, col 4, lines 40-45) where
the inductor 10 has an arcuate portion 16, leg 18 , arcuate portion
20 and leg portion 22 which together constitute an inner coil (Fig.
3) which faces the workpiece to heat; arcuate portion 30, leg
portion 28, transition area 32 and leg segment 26 which together
constitute an outer coil (Fig. 3) which faces the work piece to
heat and arcuate portion 24 (transition coil, Fig. 3) connected
between leg segment 26 of outer coil and leg portion 22 of inner
coil (Fig. 3) and the arcuate portion 24 over a length of the
workpiece (Fig. 7) wherein the leg segment 26 of outer coil is
further away from axis A of work piece W than arcuate portion
20 of inner coil (Fig. 7).
Non-Final Act. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds:
Regarding the preamble limitation “for heating a gear-like article
having an annular region around a central axis of one or more
discrete protrusions from a surface of the gear-like article”,
claims 1, 17 and 22 are directed to the electric induction heating
apparatus itself and not a particular use of electric induction
heating apparatus or electric induction heating apparatus’s
combination with any particular environment. Thus, the claim
language would appear to be an intended use limitation.
Id. at 8–9. The Examiner does not explain how this affects the analysis
provided in the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to independent claims 17, this claim is a method claim
that requires specific steps for “rotating the gear-like article” such that inner
and outer segments of an induction coil are disposed to heat radially inner
and radially outer sections of protrusions of the gear-like article,
respectively. See Appeal Br. 36–37. The Examiner does not address these
claim requirements in the rejection or provide any indication as to how
Pusateri discloses them. Even if the preamble is determined to be an
intended use limitation, in order to show that Pusateri anticipates the claim,
the Examiner must show that Pusateri discloses the specific steps of the
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

5
claim, which the Examiner has not done. For example, the Examiner does
not establish that Pusateri discloses a method that includes steps in which a
gear-like article is oriented above or below a single turn induction coil or
rotating the gear-like article to heat regions of the protrusions of the article,
as claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the remaining
independent claims. Although the Examiner finds that the preamble merely
provides an intended use for the device, the Examiner does not address the
substantive structural limitations in the body of the claim that are described
in terms of the function of the device. For example, claim 1 requires “the
outer coil segment arranged to inductively heat the radially outer region of
the one or more discrete protrusions;” “the inner coil segment arranged to
inductively heat the radially inner region of the one or more discrete
protrusions;” “the transition segment having a transition coil segment face . .
. to inductively heat the transverse region of at least a partial length of a face
width of the one or more discrete protrusions;” and also requires the device
to have the capability of providing such heating while the induction coil is
disposed “above or below the gear-like article.” Appeal Br. 33.
Independent claim 22 includes substantially similar functional requirements.
These claim requirements describe a discrete relationship between the
heating apparatus and the particular articles it is intended to heat. At the
least, the Examiner must show that the relied upon structure in Pusateri is
inherently capable of performing these functions or otherwise explain why
the claimed function do not result in a structural difference between the
claim and the art. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, (CCPA 1971). The rejection of
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

6
the independent claims does not adequately provide such a showing.
Further, Appellant addresses this issue and explains that Pusateri’s device is
not capable of performing the claimed functions. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 12
(explaining that Pusateri’s inductor would only heat the same axial regions
of the workpiece within the inductor).
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 17, and 22. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 13, 18, and 19.
With respect to the obviousness rejections, the Examiner does not
provide further evidence or reasoning with respect to the art of record that
would cure the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims.
Accordingly, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3,
6, 11, 12, 14–16, 20, and 21.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–22.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
10, 13, 17–
19, 22
102(b) Pusateri 1, 2, 4, 5,
7–10, 13,
17–19,
22
3, 14, 16, 20,
21
103(a) Pusateri, Mucha
551
3, 14, 16,
20, 21
6, 11, 12 103(a) Pusateri, Mucha
761
6, 11, 12
15 103(a) Pusateri, Mucha
551, Denneen
15
Overall
Outcome
1–22
Appeal 2020-000599
Application 12/176,363

7

REVERSED