Ex Parte Kleber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

12789841 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121789,841 05/28/2010 Richard M. Kleber
104102 7590 10/28/2016
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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.
POOl 752-R&D-MJL 9380
EXAMINER
BOWES, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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 RICHARD M. KLEBER and MICHAEL D. HANNA
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841 1
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 17-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he field to which the disclosure generally
relates includes ways to join components of different materials, and ways to
join components that are cast-in-place." Spec. i-f 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Motors LLC.
Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 1 7-21 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A product comprising:
a first component comprising a first metal material and
having a flange extending away from a body of the first
component, the flange having a groove located on an upper
surface and a lower surf ace of the flange wherein the flange
has a plurality of alternating projections and recesses extending
therearound, and wherein the grooves are located in each of the
projections; and
a second component comprising a second metal material
different than the first metal material, the second component
having a portion located over at least part of the flange and over
the grooves to form a radially, axially, and rotationally locking
interconnection between the first and second components, and
wherein one of the first component or the second component is
cast-in-place.
Appeal Br. 35.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanna '6672 in view of Boykin.3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 8, 10-12, 17, 18, 20, and 21 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanna '667 in view of
Boykin and Hanna '598. 5
2 Hanna et al., US 2007/0119667 Al, pub. May 31, 2007.
3 Boykin, Jr., US 1,674,851, issued June 26, 1928.
2
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
3. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hanna '667 in view of Boykin and Miskinis. 6
4. The Examiner rejects claims 1and3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Boykin.
Obviousness
Rejection 1
Claim 1
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hanna '667 discloses
a product as claimed except that "Hanna [' 667] does not disclose the flange
having a groove located on an upper surface and a lower surface of the
flange, and wherein the grooves are located in each of the projections, and
wherein one of the first component or the second component is cast-in-
place." Final Act. 5. Regarding these limitations, the Examiner relies on
Boykin and concludes
Id.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify the rotor of Hanna
[' 667] by forming the rotor flange with grooves and casting one
of the components in place as taught by Boykin, Jr in order to
increase the strength of the hub-rotor connection.
4 The heading for this rejection lists claims 5 and 8-12. Final Act. 7.
However, the body of the rejection and Appellants' acknowledgement of
such make clear that the rejection relates to claims 5, 8, 10-12, 17, 18, 20,
and 21. See id. at 7-11; Appeal Br. 7.
5 Hanna et al., US 2009/0035598 Al, pub. Feb. 5, 2009.
6 Miskinis et al., US 2007/0235270 Al, pub. Oct. 11, 2007.
3
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. For
the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Boykin
discloses "'a brake drum, the flange having a groove (10, Fig 2) located on
an upper surface (10) and a lower surface of the flange (10), and wherein the
grooves are located in each of the projections (Fig. 2).' (Office Action dated
12/2113, page 5)." Appeal Br. 16. However, Appellants' specific assertions
in support of this argument focus on the Examiner's findings with respect to
the anticipation rejection, i.e., Appellants assert that Boykin does not include
a flange with alternating projections and recesses. Specifically, Appellants
assert:
The Examiner refers to the projecting lugs 17 in Boykin, Jr. to
show the alternating projections and recesses. (Office Action
dated; 12/2113; page 2)(SF14). The projecting lugs 17 are a
separate flange than the tenons 10 (SF15). Even if the lugs 17
and the tenons 10 are considered the same flange, which the
Appellants deny, Boykin, Jr. does not teach, suggest, or
disclose the projecting lugs 17 including any grooves (SF16).
Therefore, Boykin, Jr. does not teach, suggest, or disclose 'a
first component ... having a flange extending away from a
body of the first component, the flange having a groove located
on an upper surface and a lower surface of the flange wherein
the flange has a plurality of alternating projections and recesses
extending therearound, and wherein the grooves are located in
each of the projections,' as recited, inter alia, in independent
claim 1 (SF27).
Id. at 17.
Regardless of whether the Examiner's finding that Boykin includes a
flange with grooves, projections, and recesses is in error with respect to the
4
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
anticipation rejection, the obviousness rejections do not specifically rely on
Boykin disclosing flange projections and recesses. See Final Act. 5. Rather,
the obviousness rejections rely only on Boykin's disclosure of a flange with
grooves that extend through a projection, regardless of whether the lugs 17
may be considered part of the flange. Boykin discloses drum 9 with two
flange projections including "grooves 8, shown in Fig. 2, extending
circumferentially around the drum," which are used to "firmly anchor the
rim on the spokes." Boykin, 11. 53---63. Further, Boykin does disclose
alternating projections (lugs 17) and spaces around the circumference of
rim 9. Id. at Fig. 1. Based on these disclosures, we find that Boykin at least
suggest that the grooves extend through the projections, as the Examiner
finds in support of this rejection. Further, we find that Appellants' argument
is an argument against Boykin individually and does not address the
combination before us, which relies on Hanna '667 as disclosing a flange
with alternating projections and recesses. One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain
the rejection of claims 6 and 7, which depend from claim 1 and for which
Appellants do not raise separate arguments. See Appeal Br. 17-18.
Claim 3
Appellants raise a separate argument regarding claim 3, which
requires that each groove traverse the longitudinal direction of the projection
continuously from one edge to the other. See Appeal Br. 18-19. The
Examiner finds that Boykin "discloses wherein each groove traverses the
5
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
longitudinal direction of the projection and extends continuously from a first
side edge" to a second edge. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that Boykin
"does not teach that the tenons [] include alternating projections and
recesses[;]" that lugs 17, relied upon in the anticipation rejection as the
claimed projections and recesses, are not part of the flange; and that the lugs
do not include any grooves. Appeal Br. 18.
We are not persuaded of error. As noted above, Boykin discloses that
the grooves extend circumferentially around the drum. Boykin, 11. 53-54.
Thus, the grooves would appear to necessarily extend from one edge of
lug/projection 17 to the other, regardless of whether the lug is considered
part of the flange. Accordingly, Appellants have not pointed with
particularity to any specific error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions
with respect to this claim, and thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
For substantially the same reasons as discussed above with respect to
claim 3, Appellants argue that Boykin does not teach or suggest grooves that
"traverse the longitudinal direction of the flange" as required by claim 4.
We are not persuaded of error here for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 3, and thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Rejection 2
Claims 5, 17, 18, 20, and 21
With respect to claims 5, 17, 18, 20, and 21, Appellants argue only
that these claims "are in condition for allowance based on at least their
dependency on independent claim 1." Appeal Br. 20. Having found no
error in the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of
6
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
error in the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Thus, we sustain
the rejection of claims 5, 17, 18, 20, and 21.
Claims 8 and 12
With respect to claim 8, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Hanna '667 and Boykin substantially as discussed above with respect to
claim 1, and further relies on Hanna '598 only for the requirement that the
claimed second annular flange is cast-in-place over the first flange. Final
Act. 8-9. The Examiner concludes "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
rotor of Hanna [' 667] by casting the hub in place as taught by Hanna [' 598]
in order to provide a strong bond." Id. at 9.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 8. For
the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants'
arguments.
First, Appellants rely on substantially the same arguments presented
above with respect to claim 1, which we also find unpersuasive here.
Appeal Br. 21-22. Further, with respect to Hanna '598, Appellants argue
only that Hanna '598 "does not overcome the deficiencies of Hanna [' 667]
and Boykin." Id. at 22-23. Having found no deficiencies in the
combination of Hanna '667 and Boykin, we are not persuaded of error by
this argument. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. We also
sustain the rejection of claim 12, for which Appellants do not provide
separate arguments. See Appeal Br. 23.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further requires
7
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
wherein each projection extends radially from a proximal end at
the body to a distal end at a free end of the projection, and each
groove traverses the radial direction of the projection and
extends continuously from a first side edge of the projection to
a second side edge of the projection.
Appeal Br. 37. With respect to this claim, the Examiner finds:
Hanna ['667] further discloses wherein each projection extends
radially from a proximal end at the body to a distal end at a free
end of the projection (24). Boykin, Jr. further discloses wherein
each groove traverses the radial direction of the projection and
extends continuously from a first side edge of the projection to
a second side edge of the projection (Fig. 2).
Final Act. 9.
Appellants rely on arguments substantially similar to those presented
with respect to claim 3. Appeal Br. 24. We are not persuaded of error by
these arguments for the same reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds:
Hanna et al[.] ('667), Boykin, Jr[.] and Hanna et al[.] ('598)
disclose a product as set forth in claim 8. Boykin, Jr[.] further
discloses wherein the groove includes a first groove (Fig. 2)
located in the upper surface of the first annular flange and
includes a second groove [(Fig. 2)] located in the lower surface
of the first annular flange, wherein the first and second grooves
generally extend at least part way around the circumference of
the first annular flange. Hanna et al[.] ('598) further discloses
wherein the second annular flange is cast-in-place over ([0035])
and into the first and second grooves to form the
interconnection between the cheek and the hub.
Final Act. 10. Appellants' arguments with respect to this claim are
substantially the same as those presented with respect to claim 10, discussed
8
Appeal2014-009958
Application 12/789,841
above. We are unpersuaded by those arguments here for the same reasons,
and we also note that those arguments are not germane to the Examiner's
specific findings with respect to claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 17-21 as obvious. We do not reach the rejection
of claims 1 and 3-5 as anticipated.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9