Ex Parte Lang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12894542 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/894,542 09/30/2010
26096 7590 11/02/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David J. Lang
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.
15023-US; 67010-524PUS1 6162
EXAMINER
FLUHART, STACEY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J. LANG and JAMES M. REGAN
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David J. Lang and James M. Regan (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims
1-3, 10, 11, 18, and 21-33. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hamilton
Sundstrand, which is a business unit of United Technologies Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1 (filed September 20, 2013).
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention relates actuators that contain load limiters.
Spec. 1 ,-r 2.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A load limiter comprising:
a first disk for translating a first torque from an input and
having a first ramp;
a second disk for translating a second torque from an
output and having a second ramp;
at least one torque transmitter disposed between said first
disk and said second disk between said first ramp and said
second ramp;
a first conical brake surface; and
a second conical brake surface on one of said first disk or
said second disk for interacting with said first conical surface if
there is relative rotation between said first disk and said second
disk;
wherein
the first ramp comprises at least a first face
oriented at a first angle and a second face oriented at a
second, different angle,
the at least one torque transmitter moving along
said first face responsive to a first force that causes the
relative rotation between said first disk and said second
disk in a first direction, and
the at least one torque transmitter moving along
said second face responsive to a second force that causes
the relative rotation between said first disk and said
second disk in a second, different direction.
2
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 30, 31, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wasser (US 8,215,471
B2, issued July 10, 2012), Tsukada (US 2005/0167229 Al, pub.
Aug. 4, 2005), and Kerr (US 3,835,967, iss. Sept. 17, 1974).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 27-29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, and
Twickler (US 4,176,733, iss. Dec. 4, 1979).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, and Russ
(US 5,582,390, iss. Dec. 10, 1996).
IV. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 21-23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr,
Russ, and Twickler.
V. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, Russ, and Gitnes (US
5,901,817, iss. May 11, 1999).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 1 is independent and claims 2, 30, 31, and 33 depend
therefrom. Appeal Br. 12-17 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines
Wasser, Tsukada, and Kerr render claim 1 unpatentable. Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner finds Wasser and Tsukada disclose each of the recited
structural elements of claim 1. Id. at 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Wasser discloses each of the structural elements, except "that the first angle
3
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
of the first ramp is different than the second angle of the first ramp." Id. at
3. However, according to the Examiner, "Tsukada discloses a ball ramp
actuator with differently angled faces (85a, 85b, 86a, 86b) in order to
provide different thrusting forces in the two respective rotation directions."
Id. (citing Tsukada i-fi-143--44, Figs. 6, 7).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to combine the structures to arrive at the
claimed subject matter. Id. The Examiner's rationale is that a skilled artisan
would have "modified Wasser to include the differently angled faces, as
taught by Tsukada, in order to provide a different thrust force in one
direction relative to the other rotation direction." Id. The Examiner also
finds that Kerr to evidence that a skilled artisan recognized torque limiters
need to have the capacity to be set for different tripping values in opposite
directions of travel. Id. at 4 (citing Kerr, 1:27-28). In the Answer, the
Examiner further clarifies "Kerr discloses generally that [having different
tripping values] is a desirable feature in mechanical blocking devices ...
which should suffice as evidence showing this characteristic is in fact
desirable in torque blocking devices such as that of Wasser." Ans. 7-8
(citing Kerr, 1 :20-21, 27-28).
Appellants persuasively show the Examiner's rationale lacks a
rational underpinning. Appeal Br. 3-7. In particular, Appellants argue the
evidence does not demonstrate a skilled artisan would have seen a benefit in
modifying the torque blocker of Wasser with the mechanism Tsukada
discloses to transfer torque between clutch plates. Id. at 4--6. Wasser
discloses a mechanical brake (e.g., a motor brake),
4
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
with an axial shifting mechanism arranged on an input drive shaft
and an axial shifting mechanism arranged on an output drive
shaft, wherein the two axial shifting mechanisms are so
embodied that their shifting directions are opposite and that, in
the case of introduction of a torque via the input drive shaft
and/or the output drive shaft, the axial shifting mechanism
associated with the input drive shaft has precedence over the
axial shifting mechanism associated with the output drive shaft.
Wasser, 3:17-26. Wasser's Figure 1, reproduced below, discloses an
arrangement for transmitting torque from an input drive shaft 2 to an output
drive shaft 3, which also includes a torque limiter that prevents transmission
of torque from the output drive shaft 3 to the input drive shaft 2. See id. at
5:65---6:19, 6:31---63, Fig. 1).
Mo1or27
~-
z
5
/\c
Flg.1
3
Valve 31
--)
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
Above Figure 1 from Wasser shows a longitudinal section through a
preferred embodiment of the Wasser's motor brake. Id. at Fig. 1, 5:5---6.
Wasser limits transmission of torque to the input drive shaft 2, while
enabling transmission of torque to the output drive shaft 2, by having
separate ball-ramp actuators (8, 9, 13 and 14, 15, 19). Id. at 6:20-7:65. The
first actuator (14, 15, 19) is on the output shaft, which engages a cone brake
( 6) if the torque on the output drive shaft 3 is greater than the input drive
shaft 2. Id. at 6:64--7:29. The second actuator (8, 9, 13) is on the input
shaft, at an inner diameter of the cone brake ( 6), to disengage the brake if the
torque on the input drive shaft 2 is greater than the output drive shaft 3. Id.
at 7:30-40. The input actuator (8, 9, 13) only affects disengaging the brake
and the output actuator (14, 15, 19) only affects engaging the brake. Id. at
5:65---6:19. Priority "always lies with the input drive side, i.e., when a
rotational movement is applied to the input drive shaft 2, the brake cone 6 is
pressed out of the brake flange 7 via the inclined planes 10, 11 of the
recesses 12 and the balls 13, and the rotational movement is transmitted to
the output drive shaft 3." Id. at 7:54--59.
Tsukada discloses,
a clutch device including ... a torque cam mechanism disposed
between the first and second friction clutches in such a manner
that the state of the first friction clutch is changed from the power
cut-off state to a power transfer state upon occurrence of a
relative rotation difference between the input member and the
output member.
Tsukada i-f 3. Tsukada uses different angled cam surfaces 85a, 85b, 86a, and
86b to affect different levels of torque transfer in one direction versus the
opposite direction. Id. i-fi-1 43--44, Figs. 6, 7. The angled surfaces of cam
plates 7 6 and 77 of Tsukada control the amount of driving force, from the
6
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
engine, that transfers. Id. When the engine is applying a drive force, the
shallower angle of the first cam surfaces increase "the force acting to push
the first pressure plate 51 toward the first pressure receiving plate portion
50a of the first clutch center 50 in the first friction clutch 45." Id. i-f 43, Fig.
6. When the engine is applying a braking force, the steeper angle of the
second cam surfaces decrease the same force. Id. i-f 44, Fig. 7. Notably,
Tsukada does not disclose, or suggest, utilizing angled cam surfaces to affect
the engagement/disengagement of a brake to limit or prevent rotational
phase difference between the torques applied to cam plates 76 and 77.
Appellants correctly note,
[ w ]hile the Kerr reference does include a statement that a
blocking device is used to retain synchronization has to stop an
entire system and that such a device should have the capacity to
be set for different tripping values in opposite directions of
travel, there is nothing else in that reference that lends any
credence to the Examiner's analysis.
Reply Br. 3. Kerr states blocking devices must possess the "[ c ]apacity to be
set for different tripping values in opposite directions of travel." Kerr,
1 :20-28. Kerr further specifically identifies several types of ball actuators
forming "blocking devices" with that capacity, but notably the Examiner
does not rely on any of those to disclose a ball ramp actuator with differently
angled faces in order to set different tripping values in opposite directions of
travel. Kerr teaches the prior art ball actuator configurations rely on friction,
which is a highly variable factor that reduces the predictability of the torque
level at which the limiter will actuate. Id. at 1:51-55. In fact, Kerr discloses
using "a triangular shaped pivot plate in place of the ball ramp construction
of the prior art to provide a practically frictionless element." Id. at 1 :58-31
(emphasis added).
7
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
Nothing in Kerr, however, evidences a skilled artisan recognized ball
ramp actuators with differently angled faces had appreciable benefits in
setting different tripping values in opposite directions of travel for a
blocking device. Nor does the Examiner explain why a skilled artisan would
have sought to modify the prior art ball ramp constructions of available
blocking devices to have differently angled faces. For example, there is no
evidence or reasoning provided showing a skilled artisan recognized
frictional benefits, or increased torque level predictability, obtained by using
differently angled faces. The Examiner states a skilled artisan would
recognize modifying the input actuators of Wasser to have differently angled
faces provides the benefit of providing different tripping values to disengage
the cone brake at idle speeds. Ans. 7. But, the Examiner offers no evidence
that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide varying tripping
values at idle speed in the Wasser system, which Appellants properly note is
designed to give priority to the input side and disengage the cone brake
whenever the input drive shaft torque is greater than the torque introduced
by the output drive shaft. See Appeal Br. 4 (citing Wasser 6:34---63,
7:54--59).
We further note Appellants' claim 1 requires the ball ramp actuator to
facilitate the engagement of the brake "if there is relative rotation between
[the] first disk and [the] second disk." Id. at 12. Wasser's input actuator,
upon which the Examiner relies (i.e., 8, 9, 13), only facilitates
disengagement of the brake and a skilled artisan would recognize the
Examiner's proposed modification would not promote that functionality.
Contrary to engaging the brake when there is relative rotation between the
input drive shaft and the output drive shaft, the Examiner's proposed
8
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
modification would require introducing a certain amount of relative rotation
torque to disengage the brake. Ans. 7 ("Said another way, as the input side
begins to rotate, a certain idle speed and associated torque must be reached
before the spring force is overcome and the brake cone is disengaged from
the housing.").
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's rationale for combining Wasser and Tsukada to reach the
apparatus of claim 1 lacks a rational underpinning. This deficiency
permeates through the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 30, 31,
and 33. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
2, 30, 31, and 33.
Rejection II
Claims 3, 27-29, and 32 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 12-17 (Claims App). The Examiner's rejection of
these claims is based on the same erroneous determination that it would have
been obvious to combine Wasser and Tsukada to include ball ramp actuators
with differently angled faces. See Final Act. 5-9. The Examiner does not
cite Twickler to cure the deficiencies described above (see supra, Rejection
I). For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, therefore, we likewise
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 27-29, and 32 as
unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, and Twickler.
Re} ection III
Independent claim 10, and thereby dependent claims 24 and 25,
include the same structural limitation recited in claim 1 requiring ball ramp
9
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
actuators with differently angled faces. See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Examiner's rejection of these claims is based on the same erroneous
determination that it would have been obvious to combine Wasser and
Tsukada to include ball ramp actuators with differently angled faces. See
Final Act. 11. The Examiner does not cite Russ to cure the deficiencies
described above (see supra, Rejection I). For the reasons set forth above
regarding claim 1, therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 10, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada,
Kerr, and Russ.
Rejection IV
Claims 11, 21-23, and 26 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
claim 10. Appeal Br. 13-15 (Claims App). The Examiner's rejection of
these claims is based on the same erroneous determination that it would have
been obvious to combine Wasser and Tsukada to include ball ramp actuators
with differently angled faces. See Final Act. 13-16. The Examiner does not
cite Twickler to cure the deficiencies described above (see supra, Rejection
I). For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, therefore, we likewise
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 21-23, and 26 as
unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, Russ, and Twickler.
Rejection V
Claim 18 depends from claim 10. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App). The
Examiner's rejection is based on the same erroneous determination that it
would have been obvious to combine Wasser and Tsukada to include ball
ramp actuators with differently angled faces. See Final Act. 16-17. The
10
Appeal2014-005887
Application 12/894,542
Examiner does not cite Gitnes to cure the deficiencies described above (see
supra, Rejection I). For the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1,
therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 as
unpatentable over Wasser, Tsukada, Kerr, Russ, and Gitnes.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 10, 11, 18, and 21-33 is
reversed.
REVERSED
11