Ex Parte Thillen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13322981 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/322,981 11129/2011 Guy Thillen
23413 7590 07/05/2016
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ETF0489US 3495
EXAMINER
TIGHE, BRENDAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY THILLEN, EMILE LONARDI,
LIONEL HAUSEMER, and CHRISTIAN BENOIT TRIX
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Guy Thillen et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) Claims 1-5
and 9-21 as unpatentable over Mahr (US 3,693,812; iss. Sept. 26, 1972),
Lonardi (US 2003/0180129 Al; pub. Sept. 25, 2003), and Schafer
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
(US 5,433,667; iss. July 18, 1995); and (2) claims 6-8 as unpatentable over
Mahr, Lonardi, Schafer, and Ney (US 2,015,688; iss. Oct. 1, 1935). 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a "device that is equipped with a
chute for circumferential and radial distribution of the charge material."
Spec. para. 1, Fig. 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A device for distributing charge material into a shaft
furnace, in particular into a blast furnace, said device comprising:
a main housing;
a distribution chute for distributing charge material;
a suspension rotor mounted in said main housing so as to
be rotatable about a substantially vertical rotation axis, said
suspension rotor being provided with a first gear ring;
an adjustment rotor mounted in said main housing so as to
be rotatable about a substantially vertical rotation axis, said
adjustment rotor being provided with a second gear ring;
said distribution chute being suspended to said suspension
rotor so as to rotate therewith for circumferential distribution of
charge material and being adjustable in orientation relative to
said suspension rotor through said adjustment rotor for radial
distribution of charge material;
1 Claims 9 and 10 are listed in the heading of this rejection. However, they
are not addressed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 15-17; see also
Ans. 17-19. We consider inclusion of claims 9 and 10 in the heading of this
rejection to be an inadvertent error by the Examiner. Accordingly, we do not
consider claims 9 and 10 to be part of this particular rejection and address only
claims 6-8. See Appeal Br. 4, note 1.
2
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
a differential gear interconnecting said suspension rotor
and said adjustment rotor so as to allow differential rotation of
the adjustment rotor relative to the suspension rotor,
a main rotation drive, in particular an electric motor,
connected to said suspension rotor for imparting rotation to said
suspension rotor and connected through said differential gear to
said adjustment rotor for imparting rotation to said adjustment
rotor;
an adjustment drive, in particular an electric motor,
connected through said differential gear to said adjustment rotor
for imparting differential rotation to said adjustment rotor
relative to the suspension rotor;
said differential gear being configured to transmit to said
adjustment rotor the same speed of rotation that is imparted to
said suspension rotor by said main rotation drive unless said
adjustment drive imparts, through said differential gear,
differential rotation to said adjustment rotor relative to the
suspension rotor;
wherein said device further comprises:
a first casing arranged on said mam housing and enclosing
an angular transmission between a substantially vertical output
shaft, which protrudes from said first casing into said main
housing and is connected to a gearwheel that meshes with said
first gear ring of said suspension rotor, and a connecting shaft,
which protrudes from said first casing at an angle, in particular
perpendicularly, with respect to said output shaft;
a second casing arranged on said main housing and
enclosing an angular transmission between a substantially
vertical output shaft, which protrudes from said second casing
into said main housing and is connected to a gearwheel that
meshes with said second gear ring of said adjustment rotor, and
a connecting shaft, which protrudes from said second casing at
an angle, in particular perpendicularly, with respect to said
output shaft;
a third casing that is spaced apart from said first and
second casings and encloses said differential gear, said
differential gear being connected to a first shaft, which protrudes
from said third casing and is coupled to said connecting shaft of
said first casing, and to a second shaft, which protrudes from said
3
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
third casing and is coupled to said connecting shaft of said
second casing.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Mahr discloses the device of claim 1
substantially as claimed including "the three casings of Claim 1 individually
enclosing a differential gear." Final Act. 17; see also id. at 3-6. The
Examiner relies on Lonardi for disclosing "a separated arrangement of three
enclosures which individually enclose two output assemblies and a means
which connects the relative motion of the two assemblies." Id. The
Examiner further relies on Schafer for disclosure of "coupling two rotational
motion transmitting shafts (1 & 2) together with a universal joint (Abstract
line 1) to compensate for angular misalignment of the shafts (Fig. 2)." Id. at
8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the
charge material distributing device of Mahr with the spaced apart casing
arrangement with transmission shafts as taught by Lonardi and to further
modify Mahr and Lonardi by the misaligned shaft coupler as taught by
Schafer "in order to reduce stress concentrations in the main housing by
spreading out the casings without increasing manufacturing cost while
reducing the required manufacturing tolerances of the housings by
accommodating for some misalignment of the transmission shafts." Id. at 8-
9.
Appellants contend that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to
modify the single housing of Mahr with the three housings (i.e., separate
4
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
housings) of Lonardi, as asserted by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply
Br. 2-3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention because it
misapprehends the Examiner's rejection and is not responsive to the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner. At the outset, the Examiner is not
proposing to modify the housing of Mahr, as Appellants contend. Instead,
the Examiner is proposing to modify the casing arrangement of Mahr by the
teachings of Lonardi. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Mahr discloses
"the three casings of Claim 1 individually enclosing a differential gear" and
the Examiner relies on Lonardi for disclosing "a separated arrangement of
three enclosures which individually enclose two output assemblies and a
means which connects the relative motion of the two assemblies." Final
Act. 17; see also id. at 3-9. Appellants' arguments do not account for either
of these findings by the Examiner.
Appellants contend that "the Examiner asserts that the clutch housed
in the center casing of Lonardi would simply be replaced with the
differential gear of Mahr, purportedly to 'reduce stress concentrations in the
main housing."' Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 5; Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention because it
misapprehends the Examiner's rejection and is not responsive to the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner is proposing to
modify Mahr with Lonardi, not Lonardi with Mahr. See Final Act. 3-9. The
Examiner relies on Mahr, not Lonardi, for disclosure of a differential gear.
5
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
See id. at 5 (Mahr discloses "a differential gear (49)" (citing Mahr, 5:34-
44)); see also id. at 17.2
Further, to the extent that Appellants are arguing the references must
be capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Id.; see also Final Act. 17. As noted above, the
Examiner merely relies on Lonardi for disclosing "a separated arrangement
of three enclosures which individually enclose two output assemblies and a
means which connects the relative motion of the two assemblies." Final
Act. 17.
Moreover, to the extent that Appellants are arguing that the Examiner
fails to provide a reason with rational underpinnings to combine Mahr,
Lonardi, and Schafer (see Appeal Br. 4 ("No reference is cited for the
purported motivation."); see also id. at 6), it is well established that the
reason to modify the reference may often prompt a person of ordinary skill
in the art to do what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to
solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggests the
combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by an
applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the
2 We note that Lonardi discloses (1) "[the] differential measurement
mechanism 130 additionally comprises a system of planetary gears"; and (2)
"FIG. 6 shows a planar view of this planetary gear system." Lonardi, paras.
37 and 38 (emphasis added), respectively; see also id. at Figs. 5, 6.
6
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
Examiner articulates adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings to
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine
the teachings of Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer, namely, "in order to reduce
stress concentrations in the main housing by spreading out the casings
without increasing manufacturing cost while reducing the required
manufacturing tolerances of the housings by accommodating for some
misalignment of the transmission shafts." Final Act. 8-9. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reasoning based on Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants contend that the Examiner engages in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner cites
teachings in the references, not Appellants' disclosure, in articulating
reasons for combining the references as proposed in the rejection. See Final
Act. 3-9.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Mahr, Lonardi, and
Schafer.
Claim 2
Appellants contend that the Examiner "proposes to adopt the
arrangement of Lonardi and replace the clutch with the differential gear of
Mahr but provides no additional rationale for mounting the adjustment drive
to the casing that houses the differential gear when that casing could not
have had a motor mounted to it in Lonardi." Appeal Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention because it
misapprehends the Examiner's rejection and is not responsive to the
7
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As noted above, the Examiner is
proposing to modify Mahr with Lonardi, not Lonardi with Mahr. See Final
Act. 3-9. As further noted above, the Examiner relies on Mahr, not Lonardi,
for disclosure of the differential gear. See id. at 5 (Mahr discloses "a
differential gear (49)" (citing Mahr, 5:34--44)); see also id. at 9 ("Regarding
Claim 2, [Mahr] teaches: [] adjustment drive ( 42) is mounted to said third
casing (1001) and preferably connected to said differential gear ( 49) by
means of a reduction gear (58 & 59).").
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer.
Claim 3-5 and 9-21
Appellants contend that claims 3-5 and 9-21 "also recite additional
features that are not taught by the combination of the cited references."
Appeal Br. 6. However, Appellants do not apprise us of which additional
features are not taught by the combination of Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer.
As such, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-5 and
9-21 as unpatentable over Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer.
Obviousness over Mahr, Lonardi, Schafer, and Ney
Claims 6--8
Appellants contend that "Ney does not cure the deficiencies of the
combination of Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer with regard to Claim 1 and is not
asserted for the features discussed above as deficient in the combination of
Mahr, Lonardi, and Schafer." Appeal Br. 6. Appellants do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner's rejection. As we find no deficiency in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, for the reasons discussed
8
Appeal2014-003545
Application 13/322,981
above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-8 as
unpatentable over Mahr, Lonardi, Schafer, and Ney.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9