Ex Parte Asano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

11832860 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111832,860 08/02/2007 Tetsushi Asano
39083 7590 06/17/2016
KENEALY VAIDYA LLP
3000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 310
Washington, DC 20007
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.
HRA3009-0074B 6863
EXAMINER
DODD,RYANP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
avaidya@kviplaw.com
uspto@kviplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUSHI ASANO
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,8601
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
2-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,860
BACKGROl.J1'-JD
According to Appellant, "[t]he presently disclosed subject matter
relates to a vehicle clutch actuator and in particular a hydraulically
controlled clutch actuator for a wet-type multiple disc clutch and its
associated method." Spec. i-f 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 2-22 are on appeal. Claim 4 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
4. An apparatus for transferring a torque from a vehicle drive
train to multiple wheels of a vehicle, comprising:
at least two clutches each having a driven part and a
driving part;
a hydraulic system configured to actuate each of the
clutches by placing the driven part into engagement with the
driving part, the hydraulic system including,
at least t\x10 pistons configured to move each of the
driven parts into engagement with a respective driving part
when an operating hydraulic fluid pressure is supplied to
the pistons,
at least two pumps configured to supply an output
hydraulic fluid pressure,
at least two purge valves each located between and
connected in parallel with one of the pumps and a
respective one of the pistons,
a first hydraulic line connecting directly between a
first of the pistons and a first of the purge valves such that
there is no substantial change of hydraulic pressure along
the first hydraulic line, and
a second hydraulic line connecting directly between
a second of the pistons and a second of the purge valves
2
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,860
such that there is no suostanua1 change or nydraulic
pressure along the second hydraulic line; and
a controller configured to control the pumps and the purge
valves to provide a desired hydraulic pressure to respective ones
of the pistons;
wherein at least one of the first hydraulic line and the
second hydraulic line are not connected to an accumulator; and
wherein the controller includes means for causing a first
of the pumps to operate at a first output pressure that is greater
than the operating hydraulic pressure of a respective first of the
pistons, and for causing a respective first of the purge valves to
reduce pressure of the hydraulic fluid to a respective operating
hydraulic pressure before the hydraulic fluid reaches the
respective first of the pistons when the first of the pumps is
operating at the first output pressure.
Appeal Br. 28.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 2---62 and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Schneider. 3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Duan. 4
III. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Duan in view of Schneider.
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schneider in view of Duan.
2 The rejection of claim 7 on this ground has been withdrawn. Ans. 34.
3 Schneider et al., EP 1 236 918 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2002.
4 Duan et al., US 7,059,460 B2, iss. June 13, 2006.
3
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,860
V. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schneider in view of Ford. 5
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schneider in view of Capito. 6
VII. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-16,
and 19-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/832,849 in view of Schneider.
VIII. The Examiner rejects claims 2-22 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S.
Patent Application No. 12/847,786 in view of Schneider.
DISCUSSION
Rejection III
With respect to this rejection, Appellant groups all of the claims on
appeal together. See Appeal Br. 22-23. We select claim 4 as representative
of the claims rejected as obvious over Duan in view of Schneider.
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner finds that Duan discloses an
apparatus as claimed except that Duan only discloses one each of the
claimed clutches, pistons, pumps, and purge valves. Ans. 16-17. The
Examiner also finds that Schneider discloses an apparatus including "a
further clutch, pump, and piston, and connects the pumps to the same
reservoir 214." Id. at 18. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to duplicate the working parts of Duan according to the principles
5 Ford et al., US 6,807,472 B2, iss. Oct. 19, 2004.
6 Capito, US 2007/0215428 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007.
4
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,860
set forth in Schneider "in order to alter the speed of additional driving parts,
which is the known function of clutches." Id.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of Duan and Schneider with respect to claim
4. See Final Action 7-9; Ans. 16-17. As discussed below, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellant's argument.
Appellant argues only that the rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight. Specifically, Appellant states:
The Examiner acknowledges that "Duan '460 does not
disclose at least two clutches, pistons, pumps and purge valves."
August 14, 2012 Office Action, p. 8. (Emphasis original). The
Examiner attempts to remedy this acknowledged deficiency in
Duan '460 by stating "[Appellant's] Fig. 5 represents essentially
two of the precise same clutch actuation systems with no fluid
communication except that both clutches drain to the same
sump/reservoir." August 14, 2012 Office Action, p. 8. (Emphasis
original). From this statement, it is clear that the Examiner has
relied solely on knowledge gleaned from Appellant's own
specification and particularly the embodiment of Appellanf s
invention shown in Fig. 5. This reliance is textbook
impermissible hindsight reconstruction defined in M.P .E.P.
§ 2142.
Appeal Br. 22.
However, although the Examiner references an embodiment depicted
in the Specification in the rejection (see Final Action 8), we find that the
Examiner establishes in the Answer that this rejection, i.e. over Duan and
Schneider, "takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure." In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (emphasis added).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Duan discloses an apparatus including
5
Appeal2014-000935
Application 11/832,860
one each of the clutches, pistons, pumps, and purge valves as claimed; that
Schneider teaches a system with an additional clutch, pump, and piston; and
that it would have been obvious to provide multiple clutches, as taught by
Schneider, "in order to alter the speed of additional driving parts, which is
the known function of clutches." Ans. 16-18. Appellant has not shown any
error in these findings.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness over Duan in view of Schneider with respect
to claim 4 without error. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Rejections L IL and IV-VIII
Because we have sustained Rejection III, which is dispositive of all
claims on appeal, we do not reach the remaining rejections.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 2-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duan in view of Schneider.
We do not reach the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 103(a)
and nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6