Ex Parte Tarhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14202096 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 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.
14/202,096 03/10/2014 Recep Tarhan 3759A 6516
278 7590 09/20/2017
MTfTTAFJ T STRTKFR
EXAMINER
Collard & Roe, P.C. RASHID, MAHBUBUR
1077 Northern Boulevard
Roslyn, NY 11576 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RECEP TARHAN, CHRISTIAN MEYER,
ULRICH RETTMAR, GERD WALTER, and
STEFAN DEMONT
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 2. Claims 3—14 have been allowed. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a blocking device, gear-drive unit
containing such a blocking device, and method for producing such a gear-
drive unit. See Spec. 1:11—14. Claim 1, reproduced below (with reference
numbers added by Appellants), is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A blocking device (30) for blocking a rotary
motion of a shaft (14) relative to a housing (16)
of a gear-drive unit (10) in a blocking state, the
blocking device (30) comprising:
a first blocking element (32);
a second blocking element (34);
an electromagnet (44); and
a restoring element (42);
wherein the first and the second blocking
elements (32, 34) each have opposing blocking
surfaces upon which are formed radially
extending indentations (82) and radially
extending raised areas (84) positioned
proximate each blocking element’s
circumferential edge to enable the first and
second blocking elements to mesh with one
another in an axial direction at the opposing
blocking surfaces in a form-locking fashion to
block the rotary motion of the shaft (14) in a
blocking state;
wherein the blocking device (30) is
embodied as a separate, independent structural
unit (31) comprising a barrier housing (52) that
is configured as a stop disk (60) forming at least
2
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
one axial stop (74) for the first blocking element
(32) and that is mounted as a separate
independent structural unit (31) to the housing
(16);
wherein the first blocking element (32)
embodies a rotatable disk with a central opening
(64), an inner toothing (68) configured to
engage corresponding outer toothing (70) of a
slaving means (66) first secured to the shaft (14)
and enable installation of the shaft (14) into the
blocking element (32) to fix the shaft (14)
against relative rotation so that axial positioning
of the shaft (14) relative to the blocking device
(30) is not vulnerable to tolerances;
wherein the first blocking element (32)
includes axial extensions (62, 63) that form a
dome (57) that is braced on the stop disk (60)
using a clamping or securing ring (59); and
wherein the second blocking element (34) is
displaceable relative to the first blocking
element (32) using the electromagnet (44) and
the restoring element (42).
REFERENCES
Oldakowski US 5,121,018 June 9, 1992
Harting US 6,269,917 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Pfann US 6,459,182 B1 Oct. 1,2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pfann, Harting, and Oldakowski. Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 2 are argued together. Br. 14—16. We deem claim 1
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner relies on Pfann
3
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
and Harting to teach all of claim 1 ’s limitations except for, inter alia, “the
first blocking element (32) includes axial extensions (62, 63) that form a
dome (57) that is braced on the stop disk (60) using a clamping or securing
ring (59).” Final Act. 3—5. For that limitation, the Examiner relies on
Oldakowski, and provides annotated versions of Oldakowski’s Figures 1 and
2 to indicate the specific structure relied upon. See Final Act. 5 (annotated
Fig. 1); Ans. 10 (annotated Fig. 2). The Examiner identifies a portion of
core housing 13 (illustrated in each) as corresponding to the claimed
clamping portion with a dome shape, and an unnumbered hatched portion of
Figures 1 and 2 as corresponding to the claimed securing ring. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 10. The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the first blocking element (20) of
Pfann with a dome end with a securing ring as taught by Oldakowski [to]
provide a positive connection between the braking element and the stop
means and thus making the device more efficient.” Final Act. 5.
Appellants dispute that Oldakowski teaches the claimed dome and
securing ring. Br. 15. Appellants assert, inter alia, that Oldakowski’s core
housing 13 is not a first blocking element as claimed, which the claims
require the dome to be a part of. Id. Appellants also contend that “there
does not appear to be a clamping or securing ring attached, integrally
connected or otherwise a part of core housing 13 that might be interpreted to
be a clamping or securing ring, as required by claims 1 and 2.” Id.
We are not persuaded that Oldakowski discloses the claimed dome
and securing ring.1 Claim 1 requires the dome to be formed from axial
1 The plain meaning of “dome” suggests a hemispherical shape. Dome,
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 371 (11th ed. 2005). But
4
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
extensions that are part of the “first blocking element.” Br. 19 (Claims
App ’x). The claimed first blocking element is a “rotatable disk” that rotates
with the shaft. /J. at 18.* 2 But Oldakowski’s core housing 13, a part of
which is asserted to be the claimed dome, does not rotate. Instead, it is part
of a housing assembly through which the shaft rotates. Oldakowski, 2:27—
30, Figs. 1, 2. Therefore, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified Pfann’s rotating element 20 based on the
structure of Oldakowski’s non-rotating core housing 13, and accordingly we
are not persuaded that any part of core housing 13 corresponds to the
claimed dome.
We are also not persuaded that Oldakowski teaches the claimed
clamping or securing ring. The Examiner relies on a hatched rectangle in
Figures 1 and 2, which is neither numbered nor described in Oldakowski, as
corresponding to this ring. It is not clear that that rectangle even represents
something that is ring shaped, nor does it appear to clamp or secure
anything.
Because we are not persuaded that Oldakowski teaches the claimed
dome and securing ring, we do not sustain this rejection.
the structure that Appellants’ Specification refers to as a dome does not,
strictly speaking, appear hemispherical. See Spec. 12:12—16, Fig. 6B. We
assume, therefore, that the term is not meant to be interpreted overly
narrowly, and, at least for purposes of this appeal, consider the structure in
Oldakowski that the Examiner identifies as corresponding to the claimed
dome to be dome-shaped.
2 As described in Appellants’ Specification, the blocking device stops the
shaft from rotating by pressing the second blocking element, which is fixed
to the housing, into the first blocking element to engage “axial toothing” on
the blocking elements so that they “mesh[] in form-locking fashion.” Spec.
9:16-10:3.
5
Appeal 2016-007117
Application 14/202,096
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6