Ex Parte Harter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12566363 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/566,363 09/24/2009 Michael Harter 1006/0115PUS1 2264
60601 7590 03/04/2016
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
SCOTT, JACOB S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL HARTER and DAVID MCDERMOTT
________________

Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,3631
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Michael Harter and David McDermott (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9,
12, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Behr America Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

2

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a fluid friction clutch. Spec. 1
(Title). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced
below.
1. A fluid friction clutch comprising:
a drivable housing including a working chamber and a
reservoir;
at least one opening between the reservoir and the
working chamber configured to provide fluid communication
between the reservoir and the working chamber;
a driven disk supported for rotation in the working
chamber; and
a rotor mounted in the reservoir, coupled to the driven
disk for rotation about an axis of rotation, the rotor having a
peripheral edge,
wherein said rotor comprises a plurality of arms,
separated by a plurality of gaps having open ends at the
peripheral edge, projecting away from the axis of rotation.
Appeal Br. 14.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Hauser US 4,405,039 Sept. 20, 1983
Binder US 4,932,509 June 12, 1990
Taureg US 4,982,808 Jan. 8, 1991

Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2,3
(I) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hauser.
(II) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hauser and Binder.
(III) Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hauser, Binder, and Taureg.

ANALYSIS
Rejection (I)
Independent claim 3 recites, in part, “a rotor mounted in the reservoir,
coupled to the driven disk for rotation about an axis of rotation, wherein said
rotor comprises a plurality of arms, separated by a plurality of gaps,
projecting away from the axis of rotation, and wherein said rotor including
said plurality of arms is substantially planar.” Appeal Br. 14–15.
Referring to supplemental disk 21 (Figures 1 and 2), the Examiner
finds that Hauser discloses a rotor comprising a plurality of arms “separated
by a plurality of gaps, projecting away from the axis of rotation (i.e. grooves

2 The Examiner withdrew rejections of 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by May (U.S. 6,752,251 B2) and of claims 6, 7, 11, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hauser and Binder. Ans. 10. The
Examiner also indicated that the rejection of claims 1–11 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite, has been overcome based
on an Amendment filed on January 18, 2013. Advisory Action (mailed on
Jan. 29, 2013).
3 Rejections (II) and (III) are new grounds of rejection made by the
Examiner. Ans. 7–9.
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

4

32 define gaps extending away from the axis of rotation between the arms of
supplemental disk 21).” Ans. 7.
Appellants argue “the grooves 32 [taught by Hauser] are merely
recesses in the surface of the supplemental disk. All areas of the
supplemental disk 21 thus remain interconnected including the areas
containing the alleged arms.” Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellants assert,
“grooves 32 of Hauser do not ‘separate’ the alleged arms in the manner
recited in claim 3.” Reply Br. 4–5.
We reproduce Figure 2 of Hauser below.

Figure 2 of Hauser “is a partial radial section taken along the line II-II in
[Figure] 1 of a clutch with the supplemental disk [21]” including grooves 32.
Hauser, col. 2, ll. 48–49.
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

5

Although grooves 32 are not disclosed as passing all the way through
supplemental disk 21, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding
that the raised areas between grooves 32 qualify as arms as recited in
claim 3. Claim 3 does not require that the arms in the recited plurality of
arms be completely separated. In other words, claim 3 does not recite that
the arms cannot be separated by gaps, but also connected by a portion of the
rotor as is shown in Figure 2 of Hauser. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Hauser.
Rejection (II)
The Examiner finds that Hauser discloses most of the features recited
in claim 1, but “does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of arms is
‘separated by a plurality of gaps having open ends at the peripheral edge,
projecting away from the axis of rotation’.” Ans. 3. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that Binder discloses “radially extending slots 2, which are
open at the outer rim of the disk.” Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that
to modify the size of the apertures in supplemental disk 21 so
that they are gaps which extend outward to the peripheral edge
of the disk because the shape of the supplemental disk is a
matter of design to achieve a designed fluid dynamic and
according to Binder the blade structure of Binder increases the
service life of the blade.
Final Act. 6. The Examiner further reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the supplemental disk
21 to include radially extending slots 2 which extend outward to
the peripheral edge of the supplemental disk 21 because the
radially extending slots, as taught by Binder, serve to increase
torque which can be transmitted by the disk.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

6

Appellants argue that “[n]othing in the record suggests that fluid
transfer would be improved by extending [the circular orifices 33 in
Hauser’s supplemental disk 21] . . . to the periphery of disk 21 or that this
modification would provide any benefit.” Appeal Br. 6.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. As the Examiner notes
(Ans. 11), a determination of obviousness does not require an explicit
teaching in the prior art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (stating “A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the
relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior
art, as the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior
art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references”). In any event,
Binder states, “[a]pertures formed in the blades of liquid friction couplings
will increase the torque which can be transmitted by the coupling. Said
apertures consist in most cases of slots which are open at the rim of the
disk.” Col. 1, ll. 10–14 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Appellants’
assertion, providing apertures (in the form of slots) as described in Binder
does provide a benefit. Additionally, Hauser also describes a similar
structure by providing grooves 32 and further, explains that “[i]n place of the
grooves 32 shown in the drawing, protruding blades may also be arranged on
the supplemental disk 21.” Hauser, col. 6, ll. 39–41. Hauser characterizes
this structure as improving transport action of the supplemental disk 21.
Col. 6, ll. 34–35. Thus, Hauser’s structure, similar to the slots disclosed in
Binder, affects fluid flow, and the Examiner’s reasoning to provide a desired
“fluid dynamic” is supported by rational underpinnings.
Appellants further argue “that the fact that Binder’s design improves
coupling and torque among identical fixed and stationary disks in no manner
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

7

suggests that adding slots to Hauser’s supplementary disk, which is not
mounted adjacent to identical disks having trapezoidal slots, would
constitute any improvement to Hauser.” Reply Br. 3–4 (emphasis added);
see also Appeal Br. 6–9.
We do not agree with this argument inasmuch as Appellants do not
explain persuasively why identical disks having trapezoidal slots are
necessary for the slots taught by Binder to provide increased torque.
Appellants further contend that Hauser already increases fluid
connection via other structure, e.g., orifices 33 on supplemental disk 21, and
thus, there would have been no “rational reason to modify Hauser in view of
Binder” as proposed by the Examiner. Reply Br. 4.
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. In this case, the fact
that Hauser already provides structure that has an effect similar to one of the
effects the Examiner’s proposed modification seeks to enhance does not
support a conclusion that the Examiner’s reasoning is inadequate. Rather, in
this case, it provides support that the Examiner’s reasoning has rational
underpinnings inasmuch as Hauser indicates the effect (fluid connection) is
desirable.
Rejection (III)
In the rejection of claim 6, the Examiner relies on Taureg to teach
slots aligned with a non-radial chord of a disk. Ans. 8. The Examiner
reasons
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the supplemental disk 21
of Hauser with slots inclined as taught by Taureg so as to
achieve the benefit of improved pumping of the working fluid
outward toward the inlet orifice 12.
Appeal 2013-011000
Application 12/566,363

8

Ans. 8.
Appellants argue, “Taureg is directed to a viscous coupling in a drive.
As such, the function is completely different from the fluid friction clutch of
the present Application.” Reply Br. 5. Therefore, according to Appellants,
“one skilled in the art would not look to the teachings of Taureg with regard
to a manner of modifying the supplemental disk 21 of Hauser.” Reply Br. 5.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. Appellants do not
explain persuasively why the viscous shear coupling taught by Taureg is so
different from the fluid friction clutch of claim 6 that this reference is non-
analogous art. Indeed, both Taureg and claim 6 are directed to torque
control. See Taureg, col. 1, ll. 23–50. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Hauser, Binder, and
Taureg.
Appellants make substantially similar arguments for claim 7 to those
made for claim 6 (Reply Br. 5–6), and, for similar reasons, we likewise
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 over Hauser, Binder, and Taureg.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 12, 14, and
15.
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