Ex Parte Riches et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2013

11228760 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK RICHES and CHRIS OAKWOOD
____________

Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, RICHARD E. RICE and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

RICE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Riches, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14. App. Br. 2.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to wheel hubs and, more
particularly, to a roll formed hub of the wheel hub secured to a bearing
assembly, enabling wheel bearing retention.” Spec. para. [001]. Claims 1,
7 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A wheel and hub assembly
comprising:
a wheel that, in use, does not utilize a
central bolt mechanism;
a roll formed hub having a shoulder at a
distal end thereof, the shoulder extending in a
direction that is different than a remaining portion
of the roll formed hub and the shoulder having an
inner surface;
at least one bearing enabling rotation of the
hub assembly;
an inner ring in communication with the at
least one bearing and the roll formed hub, the inner
ring having an outer surface; and
a fusion weld adapted to lock the outer
surface of the inner ring to the inner surface of the
shoulder of the roll formed hub.
App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added).

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2; see also App. Br. 5.

Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

3
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Fukumura US 5,607,241 Mar. 4, 1997
Miyazaki US 6,672,770 B2 Jan. 6, 2004

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miyazaki and Fukumura.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14:
Appellants argue claims 1, 7 and 11 as a group. App. Br. 7-10. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 7 and 11 therefore
rise or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, as to
claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13 and 14, Appellants solely rely for patentability on the
dependency of those claims from claims 1, 7 and 11, respectively. App.
Br. 10. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13 and 14 also rise or fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Miyazaki discloses “a wheel and hub
assembly comprising: a wheel that, in use, does not utilize a central bolt
mechanism (see Figure 1 which shows the hub without a bolt) . . . .” Ans. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Miyazaki discloses the other limitations of
claims 1-3, 6 and 11-14, except
a fusion weld adapted to lock the outer surface of the inner ring
to the inner surface of the shoulder of the roll formed hub,
wherein the fusion weld is a laser weld or an electron beam
weld and wherein the fusion weld extends 360 degrees around
the inner ring between the inner surface of the shoulder and the
outer surface of the inner ring.
Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

4
Ans. 4. For the fusion weld requirements, the Examiner relies on
Fukumura’s disclosure of
a fusion weld (5) adapted to lock a ring (2) of a bearing
assembly to a hub unit (3), wherein the fusion weld (5) is a
laser weld or an electron beam weld (both disclosed see C3/L8-
12) and wherein the fusion weld extends 360 degrees around
the ring (2) at the point where the ring (2) is in communication
with the hub (3) for the purpose of providing a reliable (strong)
connection between the ring and hub (Column 2, lines 35-36).
Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify Miyazaki and provide a fusion weld adapted to lock
the outer surface of the inner ring to the inner surface of the
shoulder of the roll formed hub, wherein the fusion weld is a
laser weld or an electron beam weld and wherein the fusion
weld extends 360 degrees around the inner ring between the
inner surface of the shoulder and the outer surface of the inner
ring, as taught by Fukumura, for the purpose of providing a
reliable connection between the ring and the hub.
Id.
Appellants argue that: (1) “the Figures of Miyazaki et al. that do not
disclose a central bolt mechanism are Figures representing a driven wheel;”
(2) “the non-driven wheels of Miyazaki et al. include a central bolt
mechanism as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10;” (3) “[t]he hub assembly of a
driven wheel is mounted directly to the shaft, and thus uses the shaft to
prevent yield due to lateral forces;” and (4) “[t]herefore, mounting directly
to the shaft so that the shaft reinforces the hub assembly to prevent yielding
allows the shaft to obviate use of a weld - a weld is not needed to prevent
yield because the shaft prevents yield.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Appellants additionally argue that “Miyazaki et al.’s driven wheel hub
assembly is reinforce (sic) by being mounted to the shaft, and Miyazaki et
al.’s non-driven wheel and hub assembly is shown in FIGS. 9 and 10 and
Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

5
includes a central bolt mechanism (nut 40 is threaded onto a portion 37 of
the drive shaft 36 to clamp the inner ring in position)” and that “[t]herefore,
neither Miyazaki et al.’s driven wheel nor its non-driven wheel need
assistance in preventing yield due to lateral forces.” Id. at 9.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Miyazaki’s Figure 1 embodiment discloses “a wheel that, in use,
does not utilize a central bolt mechanism.” See Ans. 3. In particular,
Appellants have not persuaded us that Miyazaki’s Figure 1 discloses a
driven wheel embodiment. See App. Br. 8-9. To the contrary, Miyazaki
expressly states that Figure 1 depicts a “non-driven wheel” embodiment.
See Miyazaki, col. 14, l. 61 – col. 15, l. 4; see also Ans. 5. Because, as
found by the Examiner, Figure 1 of Miyazaki discloses a non-driven wheel
embodiment that does not utilize a central bolt mechanism, we also do not
find persuasive Appellants’ argument that neither Miyazaki’s driven wheel
nor its non-driven wheel need assistance in preventing yield due to lateral
forces. See App. Br. 9.
Appellants also argue that “Fukumura has no need for a weld to
prevent yielding of a roll formed hub to lateral forces” and, more
specifically, that
[i]f the teachings of Miyazaki et al. (e.g., the roll formed hub)
were applied to a wheel such as Fukumura that locks the hub to
a drive shaft, the drive shaft would necessarily be situated in a
position to reinforce the hub shoulder’s position against the
inner ring as shown in Miyazaki et al.’s FIGS. 9 and 10, such
that a fusion weld would not be necessary because the drive
shaft would prevent yielding and elongation of the hub
shoulder.
App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

6
This argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner’s obviousness rationale, i.e., modification of Miyazaki (Figure 1)
utilizing a fusion weld as taught by Fukumura. Further, we note that
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief addressing the Examiner’s Response to
Argument, as set forth on page 6, lines 7-21 of the Answer, in which the
Examiner explained that the addition of Fukumura’s third coupling method
(laser weld) to the roll-formed hub of Miyazaki’s Figure 1 would provide a
reliable connection between the components and reinforce the two other
coupling arrangements already in Miyazaki (“the press fit and roll formed
portions”) in the same manner that the weld reinforces the two other
coupling arrangements in Fukumura (“serrations (19) which prevent relative
rotation and a shrink ring (21) which prevents axial movement”). See
Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9-
11, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyazaki
and Fukumura.
Claims 6, 8 and 12:
Appellants argue claims 6, 8 and 12 as a group. App. Br. 10-11. We
select claim 6 as representative of the group, and claims 8 and 12 therefore
rise or fall with claim 6.
Claim 6 requires that “the fusion weld extends 360 degrees around the
inner ring between the inner surface of the shoulder and the outer surface of
the inner ring.”
In addition to relying on the dependency of claim 6 from claim 1,
Appellants argue that
Appeal 2011-011503
Application 11/228,760

7
[b]ecause it would not have been obvious to weld the wheel and
hub assembly of Miyazaki et al. for the various reasons set forth
above, it certainly would not have been obvious to provide a
fusion weld that extends 360 degrees, much less a fusion weld
that extends 360 degrees around the inner ring between the
inner surface of the shoulder and the outer surface of the inner
ring.
App. Br. 10-11. We do not find this argument to be persuasive because, as
discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to weld the wheel and hub
assembly of Miyazaki (Figure 1) as taught by Fukumura.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyazaki and
Fukumura.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14.
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