Ex Parte Gustafsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

13697001 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/697,001 05/29/2013 Reine Gustafsson
60707 7590 12/20/2018
Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC
301 Grant St
Suite 3440
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
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.
019875.0001 8993
EXAMINER
LUONG,VINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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
Exparte REINE GUSTAFSSON and
FREDRIK ANDERSSON
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697 ,00 l1
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 13-18, 20, and 21, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify AGAP HB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims and are reproduced below
with emphasis added to highlight certain disputed limitations:
1. A camshaft consisting of at least one camshaft lobe and at
least two camshaft bearing journals, wherein each of the at least
two camshaft bearing journals relates to a camshaft support
bearing which supports the camshaft, and at least one of the at
least two camshaft bearing journals is separate from the camshaft
for attachment to the camshaft when the at least one separate
camshaft bearing journal is supported by its related camshaft
support bearing, a maximum radius of each camshaft lobe being
larger than an outer radius of the at least one separate camshaft
bearing journal, the camshaft having an axial center and the
camshaft characterized by being joined together with a joint
extending in the axial center of the camshaft and through the
center of the separate bearing journal.
13. A camshaft, comprising:
a first camshaft bearing journal and a second camshaft
bearing journal, the first camshaft bearing journal being detached
from the camshaft, the detached bearing journal having an outer
radius and a joint for connection to the axial center of the
camshaft; and
a first lobe having a maximum radius larger than the outer
radius of the detached bearing journal.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Tanaka (JP 61-108516 U; July 9, 1986).
Claims 4, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Helmut (EP 1956222 Al; Aug. 13,
2008).
2
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Spanio (US 5,048,366; Sept. 17, 1991).
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Lang (US 2,552,724; May 15, 1951).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 13 as obvious in view
of Tanaka alone (Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 2--4) and, alternatively, in view of
the combined teachings of Tanaka and Lang (Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 7-8).
Appellants argue Tanaka discloses a bearing collar and support disk but does
not disclose a 'joint extending in the axial center of the camshaft" as recited
in claim 1 or a "detachable bearing journal having ... a joint for connection
to the axial center of the camshaft," as recited in claim 13.
Obviousness Based on Tanaka (Alone)
As shown in Tanaka's Figures 1 and 2, copied below, Tanaka depicts
a one-piece camshaft 1 with lobes C and collar 11.
3
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
(
' i ~~-1 ··.,,.,...-~.
EJ.k;:~f )~ii"'
~~- ··.:) (.\01 )'·'
Tanaka's Figures 1 & 2
The Examiner interprets the claimed joint to be "the point or position at
which the collar 11 [is] fitted or jointed" to camshaft 1. Ans. 12.
In contrast, we understand Appellants' Figure 7 copied below to
depict the disputed limitations.
Fig. 7
..__..__ ________ <.:_10 ___ ::::f]
=c:!::;: ::::::; ····:!:, mJ
Appellants' Figure 7
Appellants' Figure 7 depicts long bolt 10 that can be inserted through
the right-most bearing journal 3 into camshaft 1, thereby joining the bearing
4
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
journal and the left and right pieces of camshaft 1 together. See Appeal Br.
6-7 (identifying Figure 7 as support for claim 1 ), 13 (identifying Figure 7 as
support for claim 13). Consistent with claim 1, bolt 10 joins the two-piece
camshaft together forming "a joint extending in the axial center of the
camshaft" as claimed. Similarly, consistent with claim 13, bearing journal 3
on the right side of Figure 7 is depicted as "having ... a joint for connection
to the axial center of the camshaft," as required by claim 13 in that bearing
journal 3 includes a hole that receives long bolt 10 extending through the
axial center of the camshaft. Consistent with the claim language,
Appellants' Specification uses the term "axial center of the camshaft" to
refer to the axial centerline of the camshaft, i.e., the rotational center of the
camshaft. See, e.g., Spec. pg. 4 ("The axial centerline through the base
circle of the camshaft lobe is corresponding to the axial centerline through
the camshaft bearing journal."); pg. 5 (describing "axial center of the
camshaft" to be within the camshaft); Abst. ("The invention relates to
designs where the joining of the camshaft components are made by a joint in
the axial center of the camshaft to minimize the influence on the outer
dimension of the camshaft.").
As is evidence from Tanaka's Figures 1 and 2, Tanaka does not teach
or suggest a joint at the axial center of a camshaft. The Examiner's rejection
based on Tanaka alone appears to be based on an unreasonably broad
interpretation of the limitation "axial center of the camshaft" to encompass
the outer, circumferential edges at the center of the camshaft's length.
Accordingly, reading the language of independent claims 1 and 13 in light of
Appellants' Specification, we disagree with the Examiner's determinations
that Tanaka alone teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1
5
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
and 13. We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 13 as
being unpatentable in view of Tanaka alone, nor the rejections of dependent
claims 2--4, 14--18, 20, and 21, each of which relies on the same error
explained above.
Obviousness Based on Tanaka and Lang
In the rejection of claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable in view of Tanaka
and Lang, the Examiner cites Lang's Figures 1 and 6 as teaching a camshaft
that includes the joints of the disputed limitations. Final Act. 13-14; Ans.
7-8. Lang's Figure 1 is copied below.
Lang's Figure 1
As cited by the Examiner, Lang's Figure 1 depicts a three-piece camshaft
joined by bolts 6 and 7 inserted through the axial center of the camshaft. See
Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 7-8.
Appellants do not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings
regarding Lang nor the Examiner's conclusions regarding the combined
teachings of Tanaka and Lang. Appeal Br. 11, 14. Rather than substantively
addressing the Examiner's findings and conclusions, Appellants address
Lang only by stating "Lang does not disclose or suggest an axial joint in a
camshaft." Appeal Br. 11, 14. However, contrary to the Appellants'
6
Appeal2017-010677
Application 13/697,001
assertion, it is clear that Lang discloses a camshaft having a joint at the axial
center of the camshaft. Lang, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, because Appellants do not substantively rebut the
Examiner's findings or conclusions, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 13 as being unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Lang.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims of claims 1 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Lang.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-3 and 13-17 as being unpatentable in view of Tanaka; claims 4, 18,
and 21 as being unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Helmut; and claim 20 as
being unpatentable in view of Tanaka and Spanio.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7