Ex Parte ANDO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

12820386 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
12/820,386 06/22/2010 Kazuya ANDO 145509 2060
25944 7590
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
THIEDE, PAUL WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUYA ANDO
Appeal 2016-01693
Application 12/820,386
Technology Center 3700
Before NEIL T. POWELL, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kazuya Ando (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 3-5. Appellant’s
representative presented oral argument on December 11, 2017. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a vane pump. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative:
1. A vane pump, comprising:
a shaft including an end;
a pump housing having a front housing and a rear housing,
the front and rear housings each having an inner face and an outer
face, the rear housing comprising a communication hole that
provides communication between a portion of the inner face of
the rear housing and the outer face of the rear housing, the shaft
being received into the front housing and the rear housing such
that the end of the shaft is disposed in the rear housing;
a cam ring that is provided between the inner face of the
front housing and the inner face of the rear housing;
a rotor that is rotatably provided on a radially inner side of
the cam ring, and that has a radially outer peripheral face in
which multiple vane housing portions that extend in a radial
direction are formed, each vane housing portion comprising a
vane back-pressure chamber formed at a radially inner end
portion of the vane housing portion;
a vane slidably provided in each of the vane housing
portions;
a hydraulic pressure supply destination component with
the outer face of the rear housing fitted to a fitting face of the
hydraulic pressure supply destination component; and
a back-pressure introduction passage that is between a
discharge port and the communication hole and connects the
discharge port to the communication hole, the back-pressure
introduction passage being formed between an outer facing
surface of the rear housing and one of the fitting face or an
adjacent face of the hydraulic pressure supply destination
component, wherein
the outer face of the rear housing includes a radially inner
portion disposed proximate the end of the shaft and a radially
outer portion remotely spaced apart from both the end of the shaft
2
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
and the radially inner portion, the radially inner portion and the
radially outer portion of the outer face of the rear housing,
respectively, being placed against the fitting face of the hydraulic
pressure supply destination component,
upon rotation of the rotor, operation of the vanes causes
hydraulic fluid to be discharged to the discharge port, and
a portion of the discharged hydraulic fluid is introduced
into each of the vane back-pressure chambers, whereby the vanes
are pushed against an inner periphery of the cam ring.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wong (US 6,422,845 Bl, issued July 23, 2002) in
view of Uchino (US 6,976,830 B2, issued Dec. 20, 2005), and further in
view ofNarai (JP 10-306783 A, published Nov. 17, 1998).1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Wong teaches a vane pump with many of the
features recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 8-11. The Examiner
asserts that the claim language “the radially inner portion ... of the outer
face of the rear housing . . . being placed against the fitting face of the
hydraulic pressure supply destination component” would have been obvious.
Id. at 11-12. The Examiner notes that the rear housing of Wong’s vane
pump has a radially inner portion, but Wong “does not teach that this
radially inner portion of the rear housing is placed against the fitting face of
the component.” Id. at 11.
Addressing this difference between Wong and claim 1, the Examiner
finds that Uchino teaches a vane pump with a radially inner portion of its
1 The Examiner’s Answer withdraws a rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
rear housing placed against the fitting face of the component. Id. The
Examiner adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that “if the radially inner portion is placed against the fitting face of the
component as taught by [Uchino,] passages would be required ... to ensure
fluid flow in to the undervane channels.” Id. The Examiner asserts that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need for passages
from Wong, Uchino, and “applied common sense.” Id. The Examiner
concludes that the claimed invention would have been obvious “for at least
the benefit of having an alternative construction of the vane pump for a
given application of use that still ensures the vane pump has the improved
undervane porting during pump operation.” Id. at 11-12.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has not provided a
rational reason why it would have been obvious to put the radially inner
portion of Wong’s rear housing against the component. App. Br. 8-10.
Appellant explains that “[t]he Examiner’s only reason as to why it would
have been obvious to use Uchino’s design is for at least the benefit of having
an alternative construction of the vane pump for a given application.” Id. at
9. Appellant indicates that the Examiner’s inspiration for combining the
teachings of the references derives from Appellant’s disclosure, rather than
the knowledge in the art. Id. at 9-10. Appellant also argues that the claimed
invention would not have been obvious merely because the prior art
references collectively teach everything in the claims. Id. at 11-12. In
support of this, Appellant argues that “the results of the claimed invention
would not have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at
11. Appellant further argues that the claimed invention would not have been
obvious to try. Id. at 13.
4
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
The Examiner responds that Wong and Uchino teach the same kind of
pump in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s. Ans. 6-8. The
Examiner asserts that a space between Wong’s end cap 16 and rear housing
22 defines a back pressure introduction passage 66 that allows fluid to flow
to undervane fluid channels. Id. 6. The Examiner further asserts that
Uchino discloses providing fluid flow between flush-mounted surfaces by
having channels cut into one or both of the flush-mounted surfaces. Id. at 8.
Given this, the Examiner asserts:
Additionally, the [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also
recognize and understand from the teachings of UCHINO that
channels can alternatively be formed within the structures of the
vane pump in the axially flush mounted surface configuration so
that fluid can move effectively therethrough and the vane pump
can thereby operate efficiently (ANNOTATED Fig. 2 of
UCHINO). Thus, both WONG and UCHINO provide art
recognized alternative arrangements of moving fluid through the
vane pump in the same field of endeavor. Since the vane pump
of WONG and the vane pump of UCHINO are art recognized
equivalents, the substitution of the axial flush mounted rear body
surface configuration as taught by UCHINO that includes
channels to facilitate fluid flow (including an illustrated
channeled BPIP) to replace the circumferentially mounted end
cap arrangement that forms a BPIP space that facilitates fluid
flow as taught by WONG, is obvious.
Id. at 9-10.
In response, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not demonstrated
that either Wong or Uchino teaches a radially inner portion of an outer face
of a rear housing disposed against a fitting face of a hydraulic pressure
supply destination component. Reply Br. 1-5. Accordingly, Appellant
argues, “a feature is missing after the references are combined.” Id. at 5.
Appellant also argues that Uchino does not disclose an alternative
arrangement that would have suggested modifying Wong’s pump in the
5
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
manner indicated by the Examiner. Id. at 5-7. In support of this contention,
Appellant asserts that Wong’s pump has flush mounted surfaces in the same
places Uchino’s pump does. Id. at 5-6. Specifically, Appellant argues
“Uchino therefore fails to disclose alternatively formed channels because
Wong and Uchino both disclose channels formed for axially mounted
surfaces between the front housing and the rear housing.” Id. at 6.
Appellant persuades us of error in the Examiner’s assertion that it
would have been obvious to modify Wong’s pump to place the radially inner
portion of an outer surface of the rear housing against the fitting face of a
hydraulic pressure supply destination component. The Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness rests on the assertion that:
[T]he [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also recognize
and understand from the teachings of UCHINO that channels can
alternatively be formed within the structures of the vane pump in
the axially flush mounted surface configuration so that fluid can
move effectively therethrough and the vane pump can thereby
operate efficiently.
Ans. 9-10 (emphases added).
If accurate, this assertion demonstrates only that a person of ordinary
skill in the art could have so modified Wong’s pump; it does not identify any
reason that a person of ordinary would have had to so modify Wong’s pump.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not supported
the conclusion of obviousness. See, e.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-TekLLC, 805
F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[Ojbviousness concerns whether a
skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to
make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.”).
6
Appeal 2016-001693
Application 12/820,386
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong, Uchino, and Narai.
REVERSED
7