SOROKA, JOHN D.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

14809391 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2020)

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.
14/809,391 07/27/2015 JOHN D. SOROKA 83531639 6621
28866 7590 01/14/2020
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
BROWN, JOSEPH HENRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN D. SOROKA
___________________

Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. Final Act. 2–6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a transmission assembly in an automotive
powertrain that includes a torque converter. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 10 are
independent and are reproduced below:
1. A transmission assembly comprising:
a torque converter having an impeller having a hub with a
first chamfered edge between an exterior surface and a first end
face;
a gear mounted in a transmission and on the hub and
having a second chamfered edge between an axial opening and a
second end face, and circumferentially spaced extensions
extending in a normal direction from the second chamfered edge.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies LLC, a
subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1. Our Decision references Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
May 8, 2019), Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 23, 2018),
Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 27, 2015), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 8, 2019) and Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed Mar. 22, 2018).
Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391

3
10. A transmission assembly comprising:
a torque converter drivably engaged with a transmission,
the torque converter having an impeller with a hub, wherein the
hub has a first chamfered edge between an exterior surface and a
hub end face;
a gear having a second chamfered edge between an axial
opening and a gear end face, and circumferentially spaced
extensions extending from the second chamfered edge in a
direction normal to the second chamfered edge and contacting
the first chamfered edge during indexing of the torque converter.

REJECTION
I. Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chicky and Köster.2 Final Act. 2–6.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a hub with a first chamfered edge between an exterior
surface and a first end face.” Claim 10 similarly recites “a hub, wherein the
hub has a first chamfered edge between an exterior surface and a hub end
face.” The Examiner finds that Chicky discloses these limitations. Final
Act. 2, 4. Appellant persuasively argues that Chicky’s first chamfered edge,
i.e., ramp surfaces 118, 120, is not between the exterior surface and the hub

2 Chicky (US 7,017,340 B2, issued Mar. 28, 2006); Matthäus et al. (DE 10
2007 052 778 A1, published May 7, 2009). The Examiner refers to
Matthäus by the second named inventor, Köster (identified by the Examiner
as “Koester”).
Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391

4
end surface of Chicky’s impeller hub shaft 70, as each of these limitations
requires. Appeal Br. 6–8.
Chicky’s hollow, cylindrical impeller hub shaft 70 has a pair of
radially-facing flats 114, 116 near a right-hand end of the shaft. Chicky
4:29–30, 6:33–39, Fig. 4. According to Chicky:
The right-hand end of impeller hub shaft 70 is provided
with ramp surfaces 118 and 120. Ramp surface 118 slopes to the
left, as seen from the vantage point of FIG. 5 from a high point
at 122 to a low point at 124. Point 122 corresponds to the
location of one end of the flat 114 and point 124 corresponds to
one end of the flat 116. When viewed in FIG. 4, the ramped
surface 118 thus slopes downwardly from point 122 to point 124.
At point 124, the ramped surface 118 blends with the surface of
the flat 116.
The other end of the flat 116, identified as point 126, is the
high point for the ramped surface 120. The ramped surface 120
slopes downwardly, as seen from the vantage point of FIG. 4, to
point 128, where it blends with flat 114.
Chicky 6:49–61.
Figure 4 of Chicky follows.
Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391

5

Figure 4 of Chicky is an isometric view of the hub of the torque converter.
Chicky 4:29–30.
The Examiner finds that the axially-facing facet at the right-hand end
of impeller hub shaft 70 between points 122, 128; and the axially-facing
facet between points 124, 126, together constitute a first end face as recited
in claim 1 or a hub end face as recited in claim 10. Ans. 5. In addition, the
Examiner finds that ramp surfaces 118, 120 together constitute a first
chamfered edge as recited in claims 1 and 10; and that the first chamfered
edge is between the exterior surface and the first or hub end face of impeller
hub shaft 70. Id.
Appeal 2019-004248
Application 14/809,391

6
Appellant correctly points out that Chicky’s ramp surfaces 118, 120
are part of the hub end face. Appeal Br. 6–8. As such, ramp surfaces 118,
120 cannot be between the exterior surface and the first or hub end face.
Therefore, Chicky fails to teach or suggest “a hub with a first chamfered
edge between an exterior surface and a first end face,” as recited in claim 1,
or “a hub, wherein the hub has a first chamfered edge between an exterior
surface and a hub end face,” as recited in claim 10. Because the Examiner
does not rely on the teachings of Köster to remedy this deficiency (Final
Act. 2–3, 4–5), we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chicky and Köster.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Chicky, Koester 1–15
Overall
Outcome
1–15
REVERSED