Ex Parte Bayrakdar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14758717 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/758,717 06/30/2015
23280 7590 12/20/2018
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ali Bayrakdar
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.
619.1149 9406
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LORENC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALI BA YRAKDAR
Appeal2018-001605
Application 14/758,717
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 11-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Schaeffler
Technologies AG & Co. KG." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001605
Application 14/758,717
According to Appellant, the "invention relates to a camshaft adjuster."
Spec. ,r 1. Claims 11 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Below,
we reproduce claim 11 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
11. A camshaft adjusting device comprising:
a vane adjuster including a stator connectable to a
crankshaft of an internal combustion engine, and a rotor rotatably
supported in the stator and connectable to a camshaft, the vane
adjuster having a plurality of working chambers provided
between the stator and the rotor, a pressure medium capable of
being applied to the plurality of working chambers; and
a central screw for clamping the rotor to the camshaft via
oppositely situated clamping surfaces of the rotor and the
camshaft, at least one of the clamping surfaces of the rotor or the
camshaft being profiled, at least in sections, forming a profiled
surface, the profiled surface including repeating indentations and
elevations configured for establishing a form-locked connection
rotationally fixing the rotor to the camshaft.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 11, 13-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Landersdorfer et al. (US 8,826,873 B2, iss.
Sept. 9, 2014) ("Landersdorfer")2; and
II. Claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Landersdorfer and David et al. (US 8,424,500 B2, iss.
Apr. 23, 2013) ("David").
2 Although the Examiner appears to reject claim 20 as anticipated by
Landersdorfer (Final Action 8), it is clear to us that the Examiner rejects the
claim as obvious based on a combination of Landersdorfer and David (id.
at 15-17).
2
Appeal2018-001605
Application 14/758,717
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a central screw for clamping the rotor to the camshaft via
oppositely situated clamping surfaces of the rotor and the
camshaft, at least one of the clamping surfaces of the rotor or the
camshaft being profiled, at least in sections, forming a profiled
surface, the profiled surface including repeating indentations
and elevations configured for establishing a form-locked
connection rotationally fixing the rotor to the camshaft.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). The Examiner finds that each
of Landersdorfer' s rotor 1 and camshaft 31 includes the claimed clamping
surface. See, e.g., Answer 2--4. More specifically, with reference to
Landersdorfer's Figure 1 that shows details of rotor 1, the Examiner
identifies an arbitrary section between (i) end side 11 and (ii) support
surfaces 17 of depressions 15, and finds that structure above and below that
arbitrary section discloses the claimed elevations and indentations on a rotor
clamping surface. See id. at 2-3. Similarly, with reference to
Landersdorfer's Figure 2 that shows details of camshaft 31, the Examiner
identifies an arbitrary section between (i) abutment surface 37 and (ii)
support surfaces 41 of contours 35, and finds that structure above and below
that arbitrary section discloses the claimed elevations and indentations on a
camshaft clamping surface. See id. at 3--4.
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because one of ordinary
skill would not understand that Landersdorfer's rotor 1, with depressions 15
(i.e., indentations) formed in end side 11, discloses both elevations and
3
Appeal2018-001605
Application 14/758,717
indentations. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2-3 3• This is because, according to
Appellant, one of ordinary skill would not understand that rotor 1 discloses
the claimed elevations. See id. Similarly, Appellant argues that one of
ordinary skill would not understand that Landersdorfer's camshaft 31, with
contours 35 (i.e., elevations) extending from abutment surface 37, discloses
both elevations and indentations. See, e.g., id. at 3--4. This is because,
according to Appellant, one of ordinary skill would not understand that
camshaft 31 discloses the claimed indentations. Based on our review of the
record, we agree with Appellant, and, thus, the Examiner's findings
discussed above are not supported adequately.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 11. We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claim 21, based on Landersdorfer, for the same
reasons we do not sustain claim 11 's rejection. Further, we do not sustain
the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 13-19 and 22 that depend
from independent claims 11 and 21.
Rejection II
Claims 12 and 20 depend from claim 11. The Examiner does not rely
on David to remedy the above-discussed deficiency in claim 11 's rejection.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 12
and 20, based on Landersdorfer and David.
3 Although the Reply Briefs pages are unnumbered, we number them
sequentially.
4
Appeal2018-001605
Application 14/758,717
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-22
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
REVERSED
5