Ex Parte Arnott

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11372491 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BOB ARNOTT
____________________

Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-6 and 8-14. (Notice of Appeal filed Oct. 7, 2008). We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed claims.
1. In combination:
a rotary load having a face, a small-diameter
cylindrical collar projecting from the face and
centered on a motor axis, a rotatable shaft
centered on the axis, and at least two fastener
formations on the face radially equispaced from
the axis;
a flywheel rotatable about the axis and
juxtaposed with the face;
a coupling between the flywheel and the
shaft rotationally joining same together;
a nonrotatable flywheel housing surrounding
the flywheel and having a large-diameter circular
rim centered on a flywheel axis;
a generally circular centering plate having a
central circular aperture dimensioned to fit snugly
around the collar and a circular outer periphery,
the centering plate being formed with first and
second arrays of holes equispaced from a center of
the aperture, the first-array holes being spaced
identically to and alignable with the formations,
the second-array holes being spaced from the axis
differently from the first-array holes;
an adapter plate engaged flatly with the
centering plate and formed with a first array of at
least two holes spaced identically to and alignable
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

3
with the formations and with a second array of at
least two holes spaced from the axis the same as
the second-array holes of the centering plate;
means for stiffening the adapter plate; and
respective fasteners engageable, when the
holes of the first arrays of both plates are aligned
with the formations of the load, through the
adapter plate, centering plate, and fastener
formations, the second-array holes of the circular
centering plate being covered by the adapter plate
when the plates are thus fastened together.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hertell (EP 0515929 B1, pub. Dec. 2, 1992) and
Stevens (US 3,361,482, iss. Jan. 2, 1968).1, 2
Appellant filed an Amendment on Dec. 8, 2008, in which Appellant
attempted to cancel claims 8 and 9, but this Amendment was not entered.
(See Advisory Action dated Feb. 10, 2009). The Examiner maintains the
rejection of claims 8 and 9. Claims 8 and 9 are not included in the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief (we refer herein to the Second Appeal Brief
filed March 4, 2009), and Appellant does not present any argument for these
claims on appeal. As such, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and
we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 8 and 9 as unpatentable over

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hertell, Stevens, and Sabol (US 6,203,051 B1, iss.
March 20, 2001), and designated this rejection over Hertell and Stevens,
which includes claim 14, as a New Ground of Rejection. (Ans. 3).
2 Claim 7 was cancelled. (See Amdt. filed May 15, 2008). Appellant filed
an Amendment on July 7, 2009, rewriting claim 4 in independent form. The
Examiner indicated that claim 4 was allowed. (See Sup. Ex. Ans. dated Oct.
28, 2009).
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

4
Hertell and Stevens. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984-85 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the
rejection on appeal).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Hertell discloses a rotary load (1), and a
centering plate (2) with first and second arrays of holes. (Ans. 4-5, citing
Fig. 3). The Examiner found Hertell does not disclose "an adapter plate", or
the limitation, "when the holes of the first arrays of both plates are aligned
with the formations of the load . . . the second-array holes of the circular
centering plate being covered by the adapter plate when the plates are thus
fastened together," as claimed. (Ans. 5).
The Examiner found Stevens teaches an adapter plate (14) engaged
with a centering plate (rim 26) and formed with a first array of at least two
holes (B) alignable with formations of the centering plate. (Ans. 5; see also
Stevens col. 3, ll. 8-10). The Examiner found Stevens discloses fasteners
(21) that extend through the adapter plate, centering plate, and fastener
formations (citing Fig. 4), and that "the second-array holes (A) of the
circular centering plate being covered by the adapter plate when the plates
are thus fastened together," such that the adapter plate accommodates
different, standard hole patterns in various loads "such that the loads of
several different makes/models may be used for mounting to a flywheel
housing" (citing col. 1, ll. 65-70). (Id. at 5-6). The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Hertell's assembly to include an adapter plate as taught by Stevens, such that
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

5
the loads of several different makes/models may be used for mounting to a
flywheel housing. (Id. at 6).
Appellant contends that Hertell does not disclose the claimed second
array of holes, or two differently-bored plates functioning as an adapter.
(App. Br. 8). Appellant further contends that Stevens discloses only a single
"adapter" plate with two sets of bores, one to match the part on one side and
the other to match the part on the other side. (Id. at 9). Appellant contends
that Stevens' adapter plate at best corresponds to Appellant's centering plate
11 (in which case Stevens has no differently-multiply-bored stiffening plate
12, i.e., Appellant's adapter plate), or, alternatively, if Stevens' adapter plate
14 is assumed to correspond to Appellant's adapter/stiffening plate, then
there is no multiply-bored centering plate in Stevens. (Id.). Appellant
contends that the combination of Hertell and Stevens lacks the claimed
feature of "a second multiply bored plate." (Id.). These contentions are
persuasive.
We agree with Appellant that Stevens discloses only a single "adapter
plate" (14). (Col. 2, ll. 25-26, 46-47, Fig. 2). The adapter plate 14 includes
hole patterns A, B, C. (Col. 2, ll. 54-60, Fig. 2). To mount a tire onto the
trailer 11, a person selects the hole pattern A, B or C corresponding to the
hole pattern of the spare tire. (Id.; see also col. 2, l. 68 – col. 3, l. 2). While
Stevens' adapter plate 14 has different hole patterns that allow rims with
different hole patterns to be mounted to the axle assembly 19 of the trailer
11, Stevens does not disclose that the adapter plate 14 is used in combination
with an another plate, much less one that includes the particular claimed first
and second arrays of holes of the centering plate, to mount any spare tire rim
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

6
to the axle assembly. Even assuming that Stevens' adapter plate 14 may be
considered to correspond to the claimed adapter plate, Stevens does not also
disclose the claimed "centering plate." Stevens' "centering plate" (i.e., rim
26) is actually a part that is attached to another part (i.e., axle assembly 19)
via the intermediate adapter plate 14. In our view, Stevens' "centering plate"
may, at most, be considered a "load" that is attached to the adapter plate 14.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not articulate an
adequate reason with a rational underpinning to combine Stevens' adapter
plate 14 with Hertell's centering plate 2. Hertell and Stevens teach using
respective plates 2 and 14, without another plate, to mount a load to a part.
The Examiner found that in Stevens, "second-array holes (A) of the circular
centering plate being covered by the adapter plate when the plates are thus
fastened together." (Ans. 6). However, Stevens' discloses providing holes A
in the adapter plate 14 to mount the "centering plate" 26 to the adapter plate
14, not providing them in the "centering plate" 26 itself. As such, the
Examiner's combination of Hertell and Stevens would not result in the
claimed combination comprising a centering plate with first and second
arrays of holes and an adapter plate with first and second arrays of holes,
wherein "when the holes of the first arrays of both plates are aligned with the
formations of the load . . . the second-array holes of the circular centering
plate being covered by the adapter plate when the plates are thus fastened
together." (Emphasis added). Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10-13, which depend from claim 1, and sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Appeal 2010-002848
Application 11/372,491

7
We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 14 for reasons
similar to those discussed above for claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-14, and
AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8 and 9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls