Ex Parte Andonian et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2019

13657947 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/657,947 10/23/2012 Brian J. Andonian
28866 7590 02/20/2019
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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.
83249566 4101
EXAMINER
DODD,RYANP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN J. ANDONIAN, JIHONG GUO,
DENNIS W. ISKEN II, JACOB M. POVIRK, and
KEVIN M. SULLIVAN
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657 ,94 71
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify "Ford Global Technologies LLC, ... which is a
subsidiary of Ford Motor Company," as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657,947
According to Appellants, the "invention relates generally to a dog
clutch actuation mechanism, and[,] more particularly[,] to a locking
differential mechanism for a motor vehicle axle." Spec. 1, 11. 6-7. Claims 1
and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A clutch mechanism, comprising:
a gear including clutch teeth;
a housing having cylindrical axial holes, including
displaceable circular cylindrical pins, each pin axially slidable
within a respective one of the holes;
a plate including second teeth, the pins axially
displaceable relative to the plate, with axial displacement of the
pins causing axial displacement of the plate relative to the gear
and the housing, and engagement of the second teeth with the
clutch teeth.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 2
I. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
based on Fusegi (US 2007 /0197338 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2007)
and either Kleinhans et al. (US 7,399,248 B2, iss. July 15,
2008) (hereinafter "Kleinhans") or McMillan et al.
(US 2014/0235397 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2014) (hereinafter
"McMillan");
2 We reorder and combine rejections, relative to the Final Office Action and
Answer.
2
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657,947
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable based on
Fusegi, either Kleinhans or McMillan, and Razzacki
(US 2007/0289834 Al, pub. Dec. 20, 2007);
III. Claim 6, 8-10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable based on Fusegi, either Kleinhans or McMillan,
and either Balenda, II, et al. (US 2007 /0289834 Al, pub.
Dec. 20, 2007) (hereinafter "Balenda") or Jenski et al.
(US 2008/0242469 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008) (hereinafter
"Jenski"); and
IV. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable based on
Fusegi, either Kleinhans or McMillan, either Balenda or Jenski,
and Razzacki.
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites the following:
1. A clutch mechanism, comprising:
a gear including clutch teeth;
a housing having cylindrical axial holes, including
displaceable circular cylindrical pins, each pin axially slidable
within a respective one of the holes;
a plate including second teeth, the pins axially
displaceable relative to the plate, with axial displacement of the
pins causing axial displacement of the plate relative to the gear
and the housing, and engagement of the second teeth with the
clutch teeth.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1) (emphases added). In the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds, in part, that it would have been
3
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657,947
obvious to modify Fusegi's projections 75 to be circular cylindrical pins,
based on either Kleinhans or McMillan, or because "selecting a certain
shape to perform precisely the same function does not necessarily arrive at
an unpredictable predictable [sic] result." Answer 3--4 (citation omitted).
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to so modify
projections 75. Appeal Br. 6-10. For the following reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection.
We agree with Appellants that, based on Fusegi' s written narrative
and figures, it is clear that "[Fusegi' s] projections (7 5) are shaped
specifically for contact with the flat faces of ... block-shaped
projections ( 43)." Appeal Br. 6 ( citations omitted). As shown in Fusegi's
Figure 6 and 7, for example, clutch ring 37's projections 43 have generally
flat side faces, and "butt[]" against corresponding generally flat side faces of
projections 75. See Fusegi Figs. 6, 7, ,r 27. It appears that modifying
Fusegi's projections 75 to have the shape of the claimed "circular cylindrical
pin[]"would result in a line of contact rather than an area of contact provided
by corresponding faces of projections 43 and 75. Thus, the Examiner does
not provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to reshape Fusegi's
projections 75 presumably to provide less contact with projections 43. See
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7, which depend from and the
Examiner rejects with claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657,947
Rei ection II
The Examiner does not rely on Razzacki to remedy the above-
discussed deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 2, which depends from claim 1, for the same reasons we
do not sustain claim 1 's rejection.
Rei ection III
Dependent claim 6
The Examiner does not rely on either Balenda or J enski to remedy the
above-discussed deficiency in claim 1 's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 1, for the same reasons
we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection.
Independent claim 8, and its dependent claims 9, 10, and 12-14
Independent claim 8 includes recitations similar to those discussed
above for claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claim 8 for substantially the same reasons we do not sustain claim 1.
Further, claims 9, 10, and 12-14 depend from claim 8. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of the dependent claims.
Rei ection IV
The Examiner does not rely on Razzacki to remedy the above-
discussed deficiency in claim 8's rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 15, which depends from claim 8.
5
Appeal2017-010224
Application 13/657,947
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2,
4--10, and 12-15.
REVERSED
6