Ex Parte Scott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

12570161 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/570,161 09/30/2009 Steven Richard Scott 60795-300401 9647
73744 7590 11/17/2017
Patent T aw Offiee of T arrv fTiiernsiev
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 720247
San Jose, CA 95172-0247
LUONG, VINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
larrygpatent @ sbcglobal.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN RICHARD SCOTT and
CHRIS VAN ANDEL
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 “The real party in interest in this appeal is Motion Pro. Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention relates to “hand throttles for motorcycle
engines.” (Spec. 12.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A variable rate throttle for controlling a vehicle
carburetor having control cables, comprising:
a housing surrounding a cavity;
a plurality of interchangeable throttle reels, each having a
different track radius, where a particular one of said
interchangeable throttle reels is positioned at a time in said cavity
of said housing and which engages said control cables; and
a throttle handle which engages said interchangeable
throttle reel so that rotation of said handle causes rotation of said
throttle reel and moves said control cables, wherein said rotation
of said throttle handle is within an angular throttle travel range
which corresponds to the particular track radius of said particular
one of said interchangeable throttle reels which is positioned
within said cavity of said housing.
Meyer
Floeter
Fallak
Wancket
Masayuki
References
US 3,922,996
US 4,794,820
US 2004/0216550 A1
US 2006/0053936 A1
JP 2003-193869
Dec. 2, 1975
Jan. 3, 1989
Nov. 4, 2004
Mar. 16, 2006
July 9, 2003
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5, and 8—10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wancket in view of Masayuki, and Fallak.
(Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wancket in view of Masayuki, Fallak, and Meyer. (Final
Action 5.)
2
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
The Examiner rejects claims 11—16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wancket in view of Floeter. (Final Action 6.)
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wancket in view of Meyer. (Final Action 8.)
ANAFYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] variable rate throttle for
controlling a vehicle carburetor having control cables,” comprising a
plurality of “throttle reels.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent
claim 11 is similarly directed to “[a] variable rate throttle” comprising a
plurality of “throttle reels.” (Id.) Independent claim 19 is directed to “[a]
set” of “throttle reels” for use in a “variable rate throttle.” (Id.) The claims
on appeal also recite limitations involving differing “track radii,” “travel
range[s],” and “capture notch range[s].” (Id.)
The Examiner finds that “Wancket teaches the invention” recited in
independent claim 1 except for “the use of two cables” and a limitation
involving “travel range.” (Final Action 3.) The Examiner finds that
“Wancket teaches the invention” recited in independent claim 11 except that
“Wancket’s throttle reel includes one cable instead of two cables engaging
one notch instead of two notches.” (Id. at 3, 7; see also id. at 9.) The
Examiner finds that the Wancket teaches the invention recited in
independent claim 19 except for plural cables and plural cable-capture
notches. (See id. at 8.) These findings are premised primarily upon the
cable pulleys shown in Wancket’s Figures 3 and 4, which the Examiner
equates to the claimed throttle reels. (See id., 3, 7—9.)
The Appellants argue that the Examiner does not sufficiently establish
that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the prior art of
3
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
record. (See e.g., Appeal Br. 7—12.) In this regard, the Appellants urge a
comparison be made between the throttle reels shown their Figures 7 and 8
and those shown in Wancket’s Figures 3 and 4. (See id. at 12.) We are
persuaded by the Appellants’ position because, when we do this comparison,
it reveals that Wancket does not show or suggest claimed features relating to
travel ranges and capture-notch ranges. And the Examiner’s further findings
with respect to the secondary references do not cure this shortcoming.
The Appellants show, in Figures 7 and 8 reproduced below, a first
throttle reel 52 and a second throttle reel 54.
These drawings show that the first throttle reel 52 and the second throttle
reel 54 each has a body 42 with sidewalls 44 defining a groove and “making
a track 50.” (Spec. 139.) In Figure 7, the sidewall 44 has a radius 101 and
the track 50 has a radius 102; in Figure 8, the sidewall 44 has a radius 101
and the track 50 has a track radius 103. (Id.) While the first throttle reel 52
and the second throttle reel 54 have the same sidewall radius 101, the track
4
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
radius 102 of the first throttle reel 52 differs from the track radius 103 of the
second throttle reel 54. (Id.)
The Appellants’ Figure 7 shows an angle pi (labeled 68) denoting the
travel range of the first throttle reel 52 between its minimum and maximum
throttle positions; and the Appellants’ Figure 8 shows an angle P2 (labeled
70) denoting the “travel range” of the second throttle reel 54 between its
minimum and maximum positions. (See Spec, 39, 44.) The travel
range 68 corresponds to the track radius 102 of the first throttle reel 52 and
the travel range 70 corresponds to the track radius 103 of the second throttle
reel. As the track radii of the two throttle reels differ, the travel range 68 of
the first throttle reel 52 correspondingly differs from the travel range 70 of
the second throttle reel 54.
The Appellants’ Figures 7 and 8 further show that the first throttle
reel 52 and the second throttle reel 54 each includes two “capture
notches 58” for engaging control cables of the carburetor. (Spec. 145.) In
the throttle reel 52, the two capture notches 58 are separated by an angle al
(labeled 64); and in the throttle reel 54, the two capture notches are
separated by an angle a2 (labeled 66). (See id.) These angles are called the
“capture notch range.” (Id.) As the track radii of the two throttle reels
differ, the capture-notch range 64 of the first throttle reel 52 correlatingly
differs from the capture-notch range 66 of the second throttle reel 54.
In context of the claimed invention, the “rate” of a throttle is a
measure of its “travel range” which, as indicated above, is the angle
dimension between minimum and maximum throttle positions. (Spec. 144.)
Specifically, “[a] throttle which goes from minimum to maximum in a small
5
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
angular range [is] referred to as having a ‘fast rate,’” and “one which has a
large throttle angle range [is] referred to as having a ‘slow rate.’” (Id.)
As the travel range 68 of the first throttle reel 52 differs from the
travel range 70 of the second throttle reel 54, these two throttle reels “allow
a rate to be selected from a variety of choices.” (Spec. 146.) Also, as the
capture-notch range 64 of the first throttle reel 52 differs from the capture-
notch range 66 of the second throttle reel 54, this “compensate [s] for the
difference in circumference of the throttle reel track 50” and “eliminates the
need” to adjust the carburetor-control cables when changing reels with
varying track radii. (Id. 145.)
Turning now to Wancket, it shows, in Figures 3 and 4 reproduced
below, a first cable pulley and a second cable pulley which the Examiner
equates to the claimed throttle reels.
The cable pulley shown in Figure 3 has what Wancket calls a “circular”
shape and the cable pulley shown in Figure 4 has what Wancket calls a
“non-circular” shape. (See e.g., Wancket 116.) We agree with the
Examiner (see e.g., Final Action 3) that these two cable pulleys can be
viewed as having different radii in comparison to each other by virtue of
their circular versus non-circular shapes.
6
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
However, Wancket’s drawings depict that the angle (ZACB) between
the minimum throttle position (A) and the maximum throttle position (B) in
the cable pulley shown in Wancket’s Figure 3 is about 90°; and that the
angle (ZDCE) between the minimum throttle position (D) and the maximum
throttle position (E) in the cable shown in Wancket’s Figure 4 is likewise
about 90°. Thus, as pointed out by the Appellants, the travel range is
“unchanged between the two cable pulleys.” (Appeal Br. 12.)
Also, as noted by the Appellants, in the cable pulleys shown in
Wancket’s Figures 3 and 4, the positioning of the keyhole 29 (i.e., the
capture notch for the control cable) “is unchanged from one to the other.”
(Appeal Br. 12.) Thus, Wancket does not teach that relocation of capture
notches is helpful, or even necessary, to compensate for the different radii of
its circular and non-circular throttle reels.
As indicated above, independent claims 1,11, and 19 recite
limitations involving differing track radii, travel ranges, and capture-notch
ranges. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) For example, independent claim 1
recites that each throttle reel has a “different track radius” and that the
“angular throttle travel range” corresponds “to the particular track radius” of
a particular throttle reel. (Id.) Independent claim 11 similarly recites “a
different track radius” for each throttle reel and “a variety of throttle travel
ranges.” (Id.) Independent claim 19 recites “a variety of track radii” and
that the “capture notch range angle” correlates “to the particular track
radius” of a particular throttle reel. (Id.)
Insofar as Wancket shows two cable pulleys with comparatively
different track radii in Figures 3 and 4, these cable pulleys do not have
7
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
correspondingly different angular travel ranges, a variety of throttle travel
ranges, and/or correlatingly different capture notch range angles.
The Examiner appears to additionally or alternatively rely upon Fallak
to teach throttle reels with different track radii and correspondingly different
angular travel ranges. (See e.g., Final Action 11.) According to the
Examiner, “one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fallak
teaches two throttle reels [i.e., elements 126 and 120] that have two different
radii in the same or similar manner as Applicant’s reels 52 and 54” and
“similar structures are expected to behave similarly.” (Id.) However, as
pointed out by the Appellants, Fallak’s elements 126 and 120 “have nothing
to do with the angular throttle travel range” in that “[t]hey provide a return
biasing force” against “whatever travel range” is established by electronic
components. (Appeal Br. 18; see also Fallak 197, Fig. 16.)
As for Masayuki and Floeter, they appear to be relied upon to teach a
throttle reel with two control cables and two cable-capture notches. (See
Final Action 3,7.) Although the Examiner maintains that these references
teach the interchange of identical throttle reels for repair or replacement (see
id.), such identical throttle reels would seemingly have the same radii, and
the same arrangement of capture notches. Thus, neither Masayuki nor
Floeter teach throttle reels having different radii and correlatingly different
capture-notch ranges. As for Meyer, it appears to be relied upon solely to
teach the use of a “boot” to cover control cables. (See id. at 5—6.)
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1—3, 5, and 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wancket in view of Masayuki, and Fallak; we do not sustain the Examiners’
rejection of claims 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
8
Appeal 2015-005076
Application 12/570,161
Wancket in view of Masayuki, Fallak, and Meyer; we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11—16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wancket in view of Floeter; and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wancket in view of Meyer.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
9