Ex Parte Huber et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2009

10684318 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID P. HUBER, BEN R. VASA, and TIMOTHY J. CRIPSEY
____________

Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: 1 June 22, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David P. Huber et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 17, and 18. Claims 8-16
have been withdrawn and claims 5 and 6 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is drawn toward splined couplings for
transmitting torque between two components. Specification 1, ll. 11-12 and
17-18. The splined component 22 includes an annular array of axially
extending parallel splines 30 that are provided with a rib or ridge 34 formed
along the entire length of the component 22 and in between the splines 30.
Specification 7, ll. 11-14 and 20-24 and figs. 4, 5A, 5B, and 5C.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. A splined component for transmitting torque comprising:

a main body of formable metal and having a longitudinal
axis;

a plurality of spaced apart splines of formable metal
being generally parallel to the longitudinal axis of and
extending from said body and being projections on said
body that cooperate with slots on a corresponding shaft
enabling cooperative rotation; and

a plurality of small raised portions of said formable metal
extending away from said main body and being generally
parallel to the axis of said body, at least one of said raised
portions adapted to contact the surface of a
corresponding body, said splines, raised portions, and
body are integral and homogenous.
Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mangas US 5,716,276 Feb. 10, 1998
Mancuso US 6,026,700 Feb. 22, 2000

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Mancuso.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mancuso and Mangas.

THE ISSUE
Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Mancuso teaches a splined component having raised
portions wherein “at least one of said raised portions [is] adapted to contact
the surface of a corresponding body,” as required by independent claim 1?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Mancuso discloses a gear spindle coupling GSC1 and GSC2 for
transmitting torque from shafts S1 and S2 to roll shafts RS1 and
Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

4
RS2, respectively, including a pinion end coupling PC, a roll
end coupling RC, and a torque transmitting torque shaft TS.
Mancuso, col. 1, ll. 40-44 and 57-59 and fig. 1.
2. Pinion end coupling PC includes a sleeve gear 13 having
internal gear teeth 15 that mesh with external gear teeth 19 of
gear 17 on the end of torque shaft TS. Mancuso, col. 2, ll. 10-
16 and fig. 2.
3. Figure 16 of Mancuso is reproduced below:

Figure 16 of Mancuso depicts an external gear tooth 302
meshing with an internal gear tooth 202. Figure 16 of Mancuso
further depicts relief depth R1 and fillet F1 of internal gear
tooth 202 and relief R2 and fillet F2 of external gear tooth 302.
Mancuso, col. 8, ll. 10-13, 20-21, and 33-34.

Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

5
4. The Examiner’s Modified Figure 16 of Mancuso is reproduced
below:

The modified Figure 16 of Mancuso depicts a main body 100, a
plurality of spaced apart splines 300 (internal teeth), external
teeth 400, and a plurality of small raised portions 200. Ans. 3-
4.
5. The relief depth R1 and the fillet F1 of the internal gear tooth
202 and the relief depth R2 and the fillet F2 of the external gear
tooth 302 have specific dimensions in order to “allow for
sufficient grinding clearance.” Mancuso, col. 8, ll. 19-22 and
32-35.
6. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“corresponding” (or to “correspond”) is “RELATED;
ACCOMPANYING” (or to “MATCH”). MERRIAM WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 260 (10th Ed. 1997).

Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Anticipation
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Obviousness
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection all words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).

OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires a splined component having raised
portions wherein “at least one of said raised portions [is] adapted to contact
the surface of a corresponding body.” The Appellants argue that Mancuso
“does not show raised portions adapted to contact the surface of a
corresponding body….” App. Br. 6. See also Reply Br. 4. In response,
pointing to Figure 16 of Mancuso, the Examiner takes the position that,
Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

7
Mancuso discloses (fig. 16) a splined component
for transmitting torque comprising: a main body
(100) of formable metal (cross hatching of fig.2
denotes metal) and having a longitudinal axis; a
plurality of spaced apart splines (300) of formable
metal being generally parallel to the longitudinal
axis of and extending from said body and being
projections on said body that cooperate with slots
(slots between teeth 400) on a corresponding shaft
enabling cooperative rotation; and a plurality of
small raised portions (200) of said formable metal
extending away from said main body and being
generally parallel to the axis of said body, at least
one of said raised portions adapted to contact the
surface of a corresponding body (i.e. the surface of
a cleaning brush, drop of grease, even a differently
shaped shaft, etc.) said splines raised portions, and
body are integral and homogenous.
Ans. 3-4. Emphasis added.
Similar to the Appellants’ invention of a splined coupling for
transmitting torque between two components, Mancuso teaches a gear
spindle coupling GSC1 and GSC2 for transmitting torque from shafts S1 and
S2 to roll shafts RS1 and RS2, respectively, including a pinion end coupling
PC, a roll end coupling RC, and a torque transmitting torque shaft TS. FF 1.
Further, Mancuso teaches a sleeve gear 13 having internal gear teeth 15 that
mesh with external gear teeth 19 of gear 17 on the end of torque shaft TS.
FF 2. After comparing Figure 16 of Mancuso to the Examiner’s modified
Figure 16 of Mancuso, we agree with the Examiner that Mancuso teaches a
splined component including a main body 100, and a plurality of spaced
Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

8
apart splines 300 (formed by the internal gear tooth 202)2 that cooperate
with slots between external teeth 400 on a corresponding shaft (slots
between external gear teeth 3023).
However, for at least two reasons, we disagree with the Examiner’s
determination that raised portions 200 (see FF 4) are
adapted to contact the surface of a corresponding
body (i.e., the surface of a cleaning brush, drop of
grease, even a differently shaped shaft, etc.).

Ans. 4. Emphasis added.
First, we note that an ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“corresponding,” (or to “correspond”) is “RELATED; ACCOMPANYING”
(or to “MATCH”). FF 6. In this case, we find that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have readily recognized that a brush or a drop of
grease is a body that is “related to,” “accompanying,” or “matching” the
raised portions 200 of Mancuso. Second, as noted above and wholly argued
by the Appellants, relief depth R1 and the fillet F1 of the internal gear tooth
202, and the relief depth R2 and the fillet F2 of the external gear tooth 302
of Mancuso have specific dimensions in order to “allow for sufficient
grinding clearance.” FF 5. As such, we agree with the Appellants that the
“purpose of the relief depths and the fillets is to create clearance between
surfaces, rather than to create contact between surfaces.” App. Br. 7.
Therefore, in contrast to the Appellants’ claimed invention, we do not find
that the raised portions 200 are “adapted to contact a corresponding body,”

2 The internal gear tooth 202 corresponds to the internal gear teeth 15 of
sleeve 11. FF 2, 3, and 4.
3 The external gear tooth 302 corresponds to external gear teeth 19 of
torque shaft TS. FF 2, 3, and 4.
Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

9
as required by claim 1. Lastly, we could not find any teaching in Mancuso,
and the Examiner has not pointed to any specific portion of Mancuso, to
show that raised portions 200 are adapted to contact a differently shaped
shaft. See Ans. 4.
Inasmuch as we found that Mancuso does not teach a splined
component having raised portions wherein “at least one of said raised
portions [is] adapted to contact the surface of a corresponding body,” as
required by independent claim 1, Mancuso does not teach all the elements of
independent claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mancuso cannot be sustained.
Finally, with respect to claim 7, the application of the disclosure of
Mangas does not cure the deficiency of Mancuso. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mancuso and
Mangas likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Mancuso teaches a splined component having raised
portions wherein “at least one of said raised portions [is] adapted to contact
the surface of a corresponding body.”

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 17, and 18 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-002692
Application 10/684,318

10

mls

FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC
28366 KENSINGTON LANE
PERRYSBURG, OH 43551