Ex Parte Kiforiuk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 201311910386 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/910,386 03/07/2008 Alexander Kiforiuk 22407-00003-US1 5309 23416 7590 11/20/2013 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP P O BOX 2207 WILMINGTON, DE 19899-2207 EXAMINER BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2013 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 ALEXANDER KIFORIUK, CHRISTIAN STAUDENMANN, and JOSEPH-LEON STROBEL ____________________ Appeal 2012-000843 Application 11/910,386 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000843 Application 11/910,386 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-22. Claims 1-7 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 8 and 16 are independent. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A power assisted steering system comprising: a motor including a motor shaft; a worm shaft; a clutch coupling the motor shaft to the worm shaft; a worm wheel engaging the worm shaft; and a gearbox housing enclosing the worm shaft and worm wheel, wherein a distal end of the worm shaft is mounted in a bearing, and a proximal end of the worm shaft is mounted to the clutch, such that an axis of rotation of the worm shaft is inclined, with respect to the worm wheel, as an axis of rotation of the motor shaft is displaced radially. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2004/0182188 A1; pub. Sep. 23, 2004) and Cheng (DE 69917870, pub. Jun. 30, 2005); and 2. Claims 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Cheng, and Ueno (US 2005/0121251 A1; pub. Jun. 9, 2005). Appeal 2012-000843 Application 11/910,386 3 OPINION Obviousness – Claims 8-15 – Nakamura/Cheng Appellants argue claims 8-15 as a group. See App. Br. 7-9. We select claim 8 as representative. Claims 9-15 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Nakamura discloses each of the features of claim 8, except the radially adjustable motor. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Cheng teaches a radially adjustable motor and proposes modifying Nakamura accordingly. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that neither Nakamura nor Cheng individually teaches an axis of rotation of a worm shaft being inclined relative to a worm wheel as an axis of rotation of a motor shaft is displaced radially. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants acknowledge that the worm shaft of Nakamura is capable of being inclined relative to the worm wheel, but explain that Nakamura does not teach that inclination is desirable. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5. Appellants explain that “there is a significant difference between teaching that the worm shaft is movable versus teaching that the worm shaft is, in fact, inclined by operation of the system.” Reply Br. 7. Appellants additionally explain that Cheng does not teach a worm shaft that inclines with respect to a worm wheel. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. Appellants appear to be arguing the references individually rather than the combination of Nakamura and Cheng relied on by the Examiner. The Examiner explains that Nakamura teaches a worm shaft that is capable of being inclined due to the resilient mounting at bearing 8 and that the worm shaft in Nakamura would be inclined when combined with a radially displaceable motor as taught by Cheng. Ans. 6. We additionally note that the Examiner does not rely on Cheng teaching inclination of the worm shaft Appeal 2012-000843 Application 11/910,386 4 relative to the worm wheel. See Ans. 7. Appellants acknowledge that the worm shaft in Nakamura is capable of being inclined and Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding Cheng or the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed modification to Nakamura. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claims 8-15. Obviousness – Claims 16-22 – Nakamura/Cheng/Ueno Appellants argue claims 16-22 as a group. See App. Br. 9-10. We select claim 16 as representative. Claims 17-22 stand or fall with claim 16. Appellants rely on arguments similar to those presented regarding claim 8, which are unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. See App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 3-7. Appellants additionally argue that Ueno does not cure the alleged deficiencies in the combination of Nakamura and Cheng as explained regarding the rejection of claim 8. App. Br. 10. This argument is also unpersuasive, as we are aware of no such deficiencies. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we also sustain the rejection of claims 16-22. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation