Ex Parte Reiter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2013

10711842 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MARKUS REITER
____________________
Appeal 2011-004775
Application 10/711,842
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, 16, and 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2011-004775
Application 10/711,842
2
The claims relate to a low-noise chainwheel assembly. Claim 1, the
only independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject matter and
reproduced below:
1. A chainwheel assembly including a plurality of
chainwheels engageable with a chain having successive
alternating pairs of inner link plates and outer link plates
connected by pins, the pins surrounded by rollers, the
chainwheel assembly comprising:
at least one smaller chainwheel having a plurality
of teeth spaced about its circumference; and
at least one larger chainwheel having a plurality of
teeth spaced about its circumference,
the larger chainwheel and the smaller chainwheel
oriented relative to each other such that a distance
between a center of the chain roller positioned between a
pair of adjacent teeth on the larger chainwheel and the
center of the chain roller between a pair of adjacent teeth
on the smaller chainwheel is substantially an integer
multiple of the chain pitch,
at least a first tooth of the pair of adjacent teeth on
the larger chainwheel including a first lateral recess
disposed on a front face of the larger chainwheel facing
the smaller chainwheel to allow the chain to move from
the smaller chainwheel towards the larger chainwheel,
the first lateral recess having a first run-on ramp
configured to lift the outer link plate in a radial direction
when the outer link plate is positioned laterally at the first
tooth,
at least a second tooth of the pair of adjacent teeth
disposed adjacent to the first tooth opposite the drive
rotation direction including a second recess disposed on
the front face of the larger chainwheel facing the smaller
chainwheel to allow the chain to move from the smaller
chainwheel towards the larger chainwheel, the second
recess having a second run-on ramp configured to lift the
Appeal 2011-004775
Application 10/711,842
3
outer link plate in the radial direction when the outer link
plate is positioned laterally at the second tooth.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Kamada US 6,340,338 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
Yahata US 2002/0086753 A1 Jul. 4, 2002
REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamada. Ans. 4-5.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Yahata. Ans. 5-7.
OPINION
Anticipation of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 by Kamada
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16 as a group. Br. 4-
5. We select claim 1 as representative with all these claims standing or
falling together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant contends that Kamada fails to describe first and second run-
on ramps positioned respectively at first and second adjacent teeth. Br. 4.
Appellant relies on Kamada’s reference to US 4,889,521 to Nagano as
explaining the operation of Kamada’s run-on ramp. Id. Appellant implies
that because Nagano describes only one run-on ramp, Kamada also
necessarily describes just one such ramp. Id.
The Examiner finds that, because claim 1 does not require that the
first and second run-on ramps are spaced apart, Kamada describes the first
Appeal 2011-004775
Application 10/711,842
4
and second run-on ramps in the form of the recesses A and B underlying
adjacent teeth as shown in Figure 4. Ans. 8-9 (citing Kamada, Fig. 4). The
Examiner bolsters this finding by noting that Kamada describes first and
second lateral recesses of different lateral depths which thus define the first
and second run-on ramps as separate, but adjacent. Ans. 9. We agree with
the Examiner. We also note that Appellant did not respond to the
Examiner’s findings as stated in the Answer. Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 16.
Anticipation of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 by Yahata
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24 as a group.
Br. 5-6. We select claim 1 as representative and analyze the rejection of
these claims by focusing solely upon claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Yahata describes the claimed first and second
run-on ramps as Yahata’s chamfered portions 48 (identified as items D and
E on the annotated version of Yahata’s Figure 5). Ans. 6. Appellant argues
that Yahata fails to describe the run-on ramps recited in claim 1 because the
chamfered portions 48 fail “to lift the outer link plate in a radial direction
when the outer link plate is positioned laterally at the first [or second]
tooth.” Br. 5.
Based on our own review of Yahata, we agree with Appellant.
Yahata’s chamfered portions 48 are smooth surfaces without sharp edges.
Yahata, para. [0038]. Yahata explains that the chamfered portions prevent
mud and dirt from accumulating on the sprocket that might interfere with the
movement of a chain from a larger to a smaller sprocket. Id. Yahata never
describes its smoothly chamfered portions as lifting the drive chain, nor do
we believe that Yahata’s depiction of the chamfered portions in Figure 5
Appeal 2011-004775
Application 10/711,842
5
supports such a finding. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 24.
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we:
1. AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 15, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kamada; and
2. REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yahata.
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-IN-PART

mls