Ex Parte Blanchard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13274882 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/274,882 10/17/2011 Robert BLANCHARD 0628-1023 8075
135621 7590
IPSILON USA
215 Lexington Avenue
Suite 1301
New York, NY 10016
EXAMINER
TRUONG, MINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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 ROBERT BLANCHARD
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, GORDON D. KINDER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
14—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest in this appeal is the assignee, France Reducteurs
of Les Herbiers, France.
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a pulley for a belt transmission device.
Claim 14, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
14. A pulley for a belt transmission device, notably for a belt
speed-variator, said pulley comprising:
at least one shaft, a transmission belt, and two flanges
supported by said shaft, wherein:
one of the flanges is axially moveable with respect to an
axis of the shaft, comprises a central recess, fits onto said shaft,
and is fitted with return means to return in a direction of the other
flange,
the moveable flange and the other flange delimit a groove
of variable dimension configured to receive said transmission
belt,
wherein at least one of the flanges is made of synthetic
material and has a surface facing the other flange comprising a
metal lining that is a centrally recessed dish,
the centrally recessed dish is in direct bearing contact with
the flange lined by the dish in an area other than an area adjacent
to a central recess of the dish and is not in bearing contact with
the flange in an area adjacent to the central recess of the dish,
the bearing contact of the dish with the flange lined by the
dish is interrupted by a free space in a zone adjacent to a central
recess of the centrally recessed dish, and
the free space, also called a peripheral space, which, by
preventing any direct contact between the flange lined by the dish
and the dish, reduces in said zone any thermal exchanges
between the flange and the dish when the dish is assembled to
the flange.
2
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reeves US 2,516,829 July 25, 1950
Rampe US 3,142,997 Aug. 4, 1964
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 14—28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reeves in view of Rampe.
2. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.2
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues claims 14—28 and as a group. Appeal Br. 4—6. We
select claim 14 as representative, and claims 15—28 stand or fall with claim
14. 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends that if an ordinary artisan were to modify Reeves
in light of Rampe, the result would not have a feature required by claim 14.
Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant suggests that the Reeve/Rampe
combination would not have the “hollow structure of element 83.” Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant suggests this is the likely outcome because the only reason
for the hollow structure in Reeves is to permit fabrication out of sheet metal
at a time when other materials were unavailable. Appeal Br. 5.
2 A rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, is
withdrawn. Advisory Action mailed June 18, 2014, p. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
The Examiner answers that the claim limitations “free space” and
“peripheral space” (Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.)) do not require the spaces to
be filled with air, but could be filled with other material. Answer 3. We
agree with the Examiner’s reading of claim 14 that an air-filled space is not
required, and for this reason, the Appellant’s argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims, and so is not persuasive. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Appellant’s Reply Brief asserts the Examiner makes a new argument
by asserting that the claimed “free space” could have another material in it
and that the Final Rejection “relies on the hollow, air-filled space shown in
Figure 8 of Reeves as allegedly corresponding to the free space of the
present claims.” Reply Br. 1. The Final Action (p. 4,11. 1—12) identifies the
free space but does not rely on the space being air-filled, and Appellant
supplies no evidence or citation to the record to support his argument.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this reply argument that the Examiner
erred.
Next, Appellant addresses the Examiner’s finding that weight
reduction would motivate fabricating part of Reeves’ pulley of a synthetic
material, arguing that there would not have been a reasonable expectation of
success. Appeal Br. 5, Reply 2. Appellant argues that “a skilled artisan
would . . . have replaced the entire disc 84 of Reeves with the solid, plastic
disc of Rampe.” Appeal Br. 5. This suggestion is entirely speculative and is
not supported by any evidence. The Examiner finds “[sjynthetic material is
known in the art to generally exhibit lighter weight than metal material due
to its lesser density. Thus[,] by replacing the metal disk with a synthetic
4
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
material, weight savings could be achieved.” Advisory Act. page 2. We
agree with the Examiner’s determination, and Appellant has not, on balance,
persuaded us the Examiner erred in that finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (Board refused to engage in speculation required
to sustain examiner’s rejection); Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 464
F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“legal determinations of obviousness, as
with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than
on mere speculation or conjecture.”).
Finally, Appellant argues that because Reeves emphasizes that his
sheet metal device is strong due to the bending and stamping method of
manufacture, one would not attempt to make such product of plastic.
Appeal Br. 5—6, Reply Br. 2. The Examiner answers that the claims are not
directed to a method of manufacture, but rather to the device itself. Answer
4. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the method of manufacture depending upon the materials selected.
Id. We also note that there is no particular strength or scale claimed, and
some synthetic materials would be strong enough for some applications even
if the metal structure of Reeves were duplicated precisely in plastic; for
example, a variable speed turntable for playing FP vinyl records.
We find that the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Having considered all the
evidence and arguments, we agree with the Examiner that claim 14 is not
patentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Reeves and Rampe. We further
sustain the rejection of claims 15—28, which fall with claim 14.
5
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
Rejection 2
Claim 18 depends from claim 14 and adds the following:
wherein the pulley comprises exactly two flanges, one flange
fixed, the other flange moveable, wherein the moveable flange is
made of synthetic material and comprises a surface facing the
other flange that is furnished with a metal lining that is a centrally
recessed dish.
Appeal Br. 9—10 (Claims App.).
The Examiner rejects this claim as indefinite because the limitations
recited in claim 18 (movable flange, fixed flange, a surface, a metal lining,
and a centrally recessed dish) are the same as those already claimed in claim
1. Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains that claim 18 “is unclear regarding
the limitations ‘a surface’, ‘a metal lining,’ and ‘a centrally recessed dish.’
These limitations appear to be already claimed in claim 14. The drawings
show only the movable flange comprising these elements, which were
already claimed in claim 14.” Advisory Act. p. 2.
Appellant argues that claim 18 is not indefinite because it further
limits claim 14. Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 18
narrows claim 14 by identifying the movable flanges as the one made of a
synthetic material whereas claim 14 would allow one or both of the flanges
to be made of a synthetic material. In addition, Appellant points out that by
reciting “exactly 2 flanges” claim 14 is narrowed from its recitation of
“comprising” two flanges.
A claim fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
“when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (approving, for
pre-issuance claims, the standard from MPEP § 2173.05(e)). A “satisfactory
6
Appeal 2015-003596
Application 13/274,882
response” to an indefiniteness rejection “can take the form of a modification
of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear
language, or, in an appropriate case, a persuasive explanation for the record
of why the language at issue is not actually unclear.” Id. at 1311. Here,
Appellant has satisfactorily explained why the language at issue is not
unclear. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18 for
indefmiteness.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14—28 as unpatentable over
Reeves and Rampe is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as indefinite is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7