Ex Parte Persson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11466473 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PER PERSSON, HANS BONDESON,
ANDERS NOBELIUS, and JOHAN GRANKVIST
____________________

Appeal 2010-003850
Application 11/466,473
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003850
Application 11/466,473

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Per Persson et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Korte (DE 40 25 569 C1, pub. Jul. 18, 1991) and
Brüggemann (DE 41 42 197 A1, pub. Apr. 8, 1993).1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on March 20, 2012.
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an exhaust valve mechanism for an internal
combustion engine, the mechanism comprising a main rocker arm actuated
by a camshaft for normal operation of the exhaust valve and a secondary
rocker arm arranged on the main rocker arm and mounted on the rocker arm
shaft for activation of an exhaust brake function by engagement of one of the
cam elements of the camshaft. Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. Exhaust valve mechanism for an internal combustion engine
with at least one exhaust valve in each engine cylinder,
comprising:
a main rocker arm for each cylinder mounted on a rocker
arm shaft for normal operation of the exhaust valve by
actuation of a camshaft with a cam element for each rocker
arm;

1 We derive our understanding of Brüggemann and Korte primarily from the
drawing figures therein, as well as from the “translation of DE4142197”
appended to the Appeal Brief as “Appendix A” and the “computer
translation of [at least a portion of] DE4025589 [sic: presumably
DE4025569]” appended to the Appeal Brief as “Appendix B.” App. Br. 12.
Appeal 2010-003850
Application 11/466,473

3
a secondary rocker arm arranged on the main rocker arm
and mounted on the rocker arm shaft for activation of an
exhaust brake function, which activation is achieved through
supply of hydraulic pressure to a piston cylinder which acts
between both the main and secondary rocker arms and takes
place through effect of one of the cam elements of the cam
shaft; and
a spring device arranged so as to act between a fixed
point on the engine and the secondary rocker arm in such a
way that the secondary rocker arm is caused by spring force
to engage with the one of the cam elements, the spring
device acting against the secondary rocker arm at a point
which lies between a bearing shaft of the secondary rocker
arm and a point of contact between the secondary rocker
arm with the one of the cam elements.

OPINION
The issue raised in this appeal is whether Korte and Brüggemann
render obvious an exhaust valve mechanism as called for in claim 1
comprising a “spring device acting against the secondary rocker arm at a
point which lies between a bearing shaft of the secondary rocker arm and a
point of contact between the secondary rocker arm with the one of the cam
elements.” See App. Br. 6.
Both Korte and Brüggemann disclose a spring which acts on the
rocker arm. See Korte, fig. 1 (compression spring 8); Brüggemann, fig. 2
(compression spring 27). Korte shows the compression spring 8 acting
against the rocker arm at a point which is on the side of the rocker arm shaft
7 opposite the camshaft 1. Korte, fig. 1. Brüggemann shows the
compression spring 27 acting against the rocker arm 6 at a point which is in
line with the point of contact between the rocker arm and the cam element 2,
not between the rocker arm bearing shaft and the point of contact between
Appeal 2010-003850
Application 11/466,473

4
the rocker arm and cam element. Brüggemann, fig. 2. Thus, neither Korte
nor Brüggemann teaches the spring acting against the rocker arm in the
particular location called for in claim 1, that is, “at a point which lies
between a bearing shaft of the secondary rocker arm and a point of contact
between the secondary rocker arm with the one of the cam elements.”
The Examiner found that Korte discloses one of the two ways for
biasing with the shaft (fulcrum) as a point of reference, and fails to disclose
the other of the two ways. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Brüggemann
teaches the other of the two ways. Id. The Examiner then determined it
would have been obvious to modify Korte “by applying the spring
arrangement as taught by Brüggemann in order to accommodate the various
fixed element positions for the spring.” Id.
In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner stated:
The “particular location” of the spring force in question
is whether or not it is on the left (from below) or on the right
(from above) of the fulcrum (bearing) and nothing more. It
would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to position the spring in
any one of the two equivalent line of actions of the spring
forces from below as taught by Korte DE4025569 or from
above as taught by [Brüggemann] DE 4142197 that produces a
moment about the fulcrum (bearing) to press the lever (rocker)
on to the cam.
Ans. 7.
Thus, as suggested by Appellants (Reply Br. 2), the Examiner
proposed what the Examiner considers to be a simple substitution of the
spring location taught by Korte with the spring location taught by
Brüggemann. However, such a substitution will not yield the subject matter
of claim 1, because neither Korte nor Brüggemann teaches the spring acting
Appeal 2010-003850
Application 11/466,473

5
against the rocker arm in the particular location called for in claim 1, that is,
“at a point which lies between a bearing shaft of the secondary rocker arm
and a point of contact between the secondary rocker arm with the one of the
cam elements.” According to Appellants, such positioning of the spring is
material, because, unlike the positioning shown by both Korte and
Brüggemann, in which no load reversal occurs, the claimed positioning
gives rise to load reversals that permit the oil film thickness to
change/increase between the bearing bushing of the secondary rocker arm
and the rocker arm shaft, resulting in significantly reduced wear. App. Br.
5-6; Reply Br. 3; see also Spec. 4-5, para. 16. The Examiner has not
disputed Appellants’ contentions with respect to load reversals.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Examiner has not
established that Korte and Brüggemann render obvious an exhaust valve
mechanism as called for in claim 1 comprising a “spring device acting
against the secondary rocker arm at a point which lies between a bearing
shaft of the secondary rocker arm and a point of contact between the
secondary rocker arm with the one of the cam elements.” We do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

hh