Ex Parte Aimone

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2012

11307381 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2012)

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.
11/307,381 02/03/2006 Michael G. Aimone 81128207 2380
46535 7590 10/15/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL/DSB
1000 Town Center
Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
BOWES, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2012 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 MICHAEL G. AIMONE
____________________

Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael G. Aimone (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. §
134 of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for preventing over-tensioning of a power
transmission device having a hydraulic tensioner with a ratchet
mechanism including a rack having a plurality of teeth for
engaging a pawl having at least one tooth and a spring biasing
the pawl into contact with the rack, the method comprising:
generating a force that opposes the spring and moves the
pawl to disengage the at least one tooth of the pawl from the
teeth of the rack to allow a centerline of at least one rack tooth
to travel past the centerline of the at least one pawl tooth in
response to tension of the power transmission device exceeding
a predetermined threshold.

The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mott (US 5,720,684, iss. Feb. 24,
1998).

Claim Grouping
Appellant presents substantive arguments directed to claim 1
specifically and all of the appealed claims generically. App. Br. 6-9; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellant also separately addresses each of claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11,
Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
3
and 15 individually by reciting language from the claim and cursorily
asserting that Mott does not teach the recited claim limitations. App. Br. 9-
10. Appellant states that “[c]laims 6, 13, 16, and 18 are not argued
separately.” Id. at 10. Because Appellant does not provide any substantive
arguments for claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 beyond those
arguments presented for claim 1, we group all of the appealed claims and
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011); In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art).

ANALYSIS
Appellant discloses a hydraulic tensioner for a power transmission
device (such as a chain or belt). Spec., ¶ 12. In particular, Appellant
focuses on providing a hydraulic tensioner with a ratchet mechanism whose
ratchet rack can retract in response to high tension in the power transmission
device, helping to relieve instances of excess tension in the power
transmission device. Id. at ¶¶ 17 and 18. Appellant states that:
Appellant’s claimed invention provides an
override function by providing the plurality of rack
teeth 66 with a retracting surface 90 that forms an
angle (beta) relative to an axial centerline 92 that
generates a transverse force FT sufficient to move
the pawl 70 away from the rack 62 when an axial
load FC from the power transmission device 22
exceeds the predetermined load so that the pawl 70
disengages the current tooth 66 allowing at least
the current tooth 66 to move past the pawl and re-
engages a new tooth of the rack 62 to reduce
App
App
App
“Mo
disen
Id.
struc
mech
Figu
surfa
relat
eal 2010-0
lication 11
te
re
de
FS
. Br. 6. Ap
tt '684 disc
gage the t
Figure 2
tural featu
anism to
re 2 shows
Each too
ce 90. Sp
ive to an a
09119
/307,381
nsion of th
sponse to
vice excee
1).
pellant tra
loses a rat
eeth of the
of Appell
res that Ap
operate in
a ratchet
th 66 of ra
ec., ¶ 20.
xial center
e power tr
tension of
ding the p
verses the
chet mech
pawl to a
ant’s appli
pellant di
the claime
rack 62 wi
ck 62 has
Each retra
line 92 of
4
ansmissio
the power
redetermi
rejection
anism wh
llow trave
cation, rep
scloses as
d manner.
th teeth 66
an advanc
cting surfa
rack 62. I
n device 2
transmiss
ned load (F
based on t
ere the tee
l in the ret
roduced b
causing A

engaged
ing surfac
ce 90 exte
d.
2 in
ion
P +
he assertio
th of the ra
racting dir
elow, illus
ppellant’s
to teeth of
e 80 and a
nds at an
n that
ck do not
ection.”
trates the
ratchet

a pawl 70
retracting
angle beta

.

Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
5
Appellant discloses that the angle beta of the retracting surface 90
determines whether the ratchet mechanism 60 will cause its rack 62 to
retract during operation by
generating a force that opposes the spring
and moves the pawl to disengage the at least one
tooth of the pawl from the teeth of the rack to
allow a centerline of at least one rack tooth to
travel past the centerline of the at least one pawl
tooth in response to tension of the power
transmission device exceeding a predetermined
threshold,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 23, and 24. Appellant discloses that
“positioning retracting surface 90 at a right angle or substantially
perpendicular to axial centerline 92” would prevent rack 62 from retracting.
Id. at ¶ 20. Consistent with this insight, Appellant discloses causing rack 62
to retract in response to high tension during normal operation by
“position[ing] the retracting surface 90 of teeth 66 [] at an acute angle beta,
i.e. at an angle beta of less than ninety degrees.” Id. ¶¶ 20 and 23-25.
Appellant notes that providing the desired retraction requires
configuring each retracting surface 90 with an angle beta below a “self-
locking friction angle,” i.e., an angle some amount less than 90 degrees at
which a transverse force FT generated by axial loads on the teeth overcomes
a frictional force FF between the teeth. Id. at ¶ 23. Appellant does not
disclose the magnitude of the self-locking friction angle or how much less
than 90 degrees it is, but Appellant indicates that the angle beta shown in
Figure 2 is less than the self-locking friction angle. See Id. at ¶¶ 20 and
23-25.
The Examiner finds that Mott discloses operating a hydraulic
tensioner having a ratchet mechanism with a construction that would
App
App
inher
that
47-4
mean
direc
that
as ca
Exam
Mott
with
of co
rack
Mott
The
retra
eal 2010-0
lication 11
ently func
its ratchet
9). The E
that “mo
tion” (An
Consiste
the teeth o
using App
iner finds
’s ratchet
the retract
nsiderably
(Ans. 9-10
’s Figure 2
Examiner’
cting surfa
09119
/307,381
tion in the
mechanism
xaminer fi
vements a
s. 9), whic
nt with thi
n its ratche
ellant’s ra
that the a
rack form
ing surfac
less than
). The Ex
, reprodu
s annotate
ce relative
manner re
provides
nds that M
re easy in
h Mott exp
s, the Exa
t rack hav
tchet rack
dvancing a
an obtuse
e of each r
90 degree
aminer sh
ced below
d close-up
to an axia
6
cited in c
a “no-retu
ott uses th
one directi
licitly dis
miner find
e a shape
to retract
nd retract
angle relat
atchet too
s relative t
ows this in
.
of Figure
l centerlin
laim 1. An
rn limiter
e terminol
on but dif
closes at c
s that Mot
like that d
in the claim
ing surfac
ive to one
th extendin
o the axia
an annot
2 shows t
e of the ra
s. 3. Mot
function”
ogy “no-r
ficult in th
olumn 1, l
t’s drawin
isclosed by
ed mann
es of the te
another (A
g at an ac
l centerline
ated close-
he angle o
tchet rack
t discloses
(col. 4, ll.
eturn” to
e reverse
ines 62-64
gs show
Appellan
er. The
eth on
ns. 3),
ute angle
of the
up of
f a tooth
.

.
t

Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
7
In view of these findings, the Examiner further finds that, in
operation, Mott’s tensioner would function in the manner recited in the
claims. Ans. 3. We agree. The Examiner correctly finds that Mott’s
disclosed tensioner has ratchet teeth with retracting surfaces angled in the
manner that Appellant identifies as causing Appellant’s tensioner to operate
in the claimed manner. Indeed, comparing Mott’s Figure 2 to Appellant’s
Figure 2 reveals that Mott’s retracting surfaces extend at an angle noticeably
smaller than the angle beta of Appellant’s retracting surfaces 90. By
establishing that Mott’s tensioner has the same structure that Appellant
discloses as causing Appellant’s tensioner to operate in accordance with the
disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of anticipation, shifting the burden to Appellant to provide evidence that
Mott does not anticipate. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977);
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326-1327 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Appellant has not met this burden; Appellant rebuts the rejection only
with unpersuasive attorney argument. Appellant argues that Mott does not
support the Examiner’s position because Mott does not indicate its drawings
are to scale. App. Br. 6. We disagree. While patent drawings not
designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise
proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue,
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.
Cir. 2000), that does not mean “that things patent drawings show clearly are
to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). A
drawing teaches all that it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979).
Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
8
This case does not require gleaning precise proportions of Mott’s
ratchet teeth. Even a superficial review of Mott’s drawings reasonably
conveys that the retracting surfaces of the teeth on Mott’s ratchet rack
extend at an acute angle considerably less than 90 degrees and substantially
equal to or less than the angle beta of the retracting surfaces shown in
Appellant’s Figure 2. For the reasons discussed above, this suffices to
support a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellant also argues that even if the Examiner is correct regarding
the shape of the ratchet tooth shown by Mott’s drawings, “the disclosure of
Mott is not enabling or inoperative as the disclosure describes a mechanical
(not hydraulic) ‘no-return’ limiter and would therefore be inoperable if the
Examiner’s interpretation of the drawings is accepted.” Reply Br. 3.
Similarly, Appellant argues that “[t]o the extent that the teeth of the Mott
'684 tensioner could disengage, this would be considered a failure of the
Mott '684 device, which is clearly described and intended to operate as a
‘no-return’ device.” App. Br. 9. We disagree. As noted above, Mott
includes an explicit, unqualified statement conveying that it uses the
terminology “no-return” to mean that “movements are easy in one direction
but difficult in in the reverse direction.” Mott, col. 1, ll. 62-64. This
supports the Examiner’s position, not Appellant’s.
Appellant further argues that Mott’s ratchet rack must not have the
ability to retract because Mott discloses hydraulic provisions for tension-
relief. App. Br. 7-8. In support of this argument, Appellant suggests that a
tensioner would not need both hydraulic and mechanical tension-relief
provisions. Id. Regardless of its accuracy, this suggestion does not address
the issue at hand: whether the configuration disclosed by Mott meets the
claim limitations, not how Appellant thinks Mott’s tensioner should have
Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
9
been configured. Appellant does not explain any reason that Mott’s
inclusion of hydraulic tension-relief provisions would cause Mott’s ratchet
mechanism with the same configuration as Appellant’s ratchet mechanism to
operate differently than recited in the claims.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant adds a cursory assertion that the
Examiner has not adequately proven that the retracting surface of each of
Mott’s teeth extends at an angle greater than the self-locking friction angle.
Reply Br. 3. This argument fails to recognize that the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation shifts the burden to Appellant to prove that Mott’s
apparatus does not meet the claims. Again, Appellant does not meet this
burden. Appellant does not identify the magnitude of the self-locking
friction angle or any evidence that Mott’s retracting surface angle of
considerably less than 90 degrees would equal or exceed the self-locking
friction angle. Indeed, as discussed above, the only tangible evidence
provided by Appellant regarding the self-locking friction angle – the
illustration in Appellant’s Figure 2 of a retracting surface angle beta that
Appellant indicates falls below the self-locking friction angle – supports the
Examiner’s position because Mott shows a retracting surface angle equal to
or less than the angle beta shown by Appellant.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11,
13, 15, 16, and 18.
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

Appeal 2010-009119
Application 11/307,381
10

mls