Ex Parte Bresie

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2012

11674600 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DON BRESIE ____________ Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 - 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Franchet et al. (US 6,796,120 B2, iss. Sep. 28, 2004) and Hewett (US 5,329,767, iss. Jul. 19, 1994) (Ans. 3-6); and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Franchet, Hewett, and Meyer (US 4,144,980, iss. Mar. 20, 1979) (Ans. 4-6). The claimed subject matter relates to an actuator configured for four- quadrant operation. Appellant argues claims 1-15 and 17-22 as a group. App. Br. 4-6. Independent claim 1 is selected as the representative claim, and claims 2-15 and 17-22 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009). Claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized: Claim 1: An actuator comprising: a reversible hydraulic pump configured to produce variable hydraulic pressure; a hydraulic cylinder assembly comprising: a cylinder bore; and a piston positioned within the cylinder bore, the piston being axially movable relative to the cylinder bore, and the piston having a rod-end side and a cylinder-end side; a hydraulic circuit hydraulically coupling the reversible hydraulic pump to the hydraulic cylinder assembly; wherein: the actuator is configured for four-quadrant operation, whereby the actuator can produce force in Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 3 support of and in resistance to each of two directions of axial motion; and actuated axial motion of the piston relative to the cylinder bore is accomplished without the use of check valves, pressure regulating valves, or actively controlled valves. ANALYSIS Claims 1-15 and 17-22 The Examiner finds that Franchet discloses an actuator having a variable-torque back-drivable/reversible electric motor (3a,b), a hydraulic transducer (4a,b) coupled to the motor and having first and second ports, a hydraulic cylinder assembly (12, 14, 16), a first flow conduit (18) hydraulically coupling the first port of the hydraulic transducer to the rod- end side of the piston, a second flow conduit (18) hydraulically coupling the second port of the hydraulic transducer to the cylinder-end side of the piston, a hydraulic accumulator (50), and a servo amplifier (8a,b) electrically coupled to the electric motor (3a,b), wherein actuated axial motion of the piston relative to the cylinder bore is accomplished without the use of valves. Ans. 3. The electric motor (3a,b), hydraulic transducer (4a,b), hydraulic cylinder assembly (12, 14, 16), hydraulic accumulator (50), and first and second flow conduits (18) are structurally integrated as a modular unit having an outer surface. Id. Actuated axial motion of the piston (12) relative to the cylinder bore (16) requires no hydraulic communication with any component external to the modular unit. Id. The hydraulic accumulator (50) has a fixed volume, and is at least partially filled with a compressible gas held at a pressure greater than or equal to ambient pressure. Ans. 3-4 (citing Franchet, col. 4, ll. 6-16). The actuator is capable of use in a land Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 4 vehicle. Ans. 4. The Examiner admits that Franchet does not explicitly teach the actuator being configured for four-quadrant operation, or the pump being back drivable in two directions. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Hewett discloses an actuator having a reversible hydraulic pump (30), a hydraulic cylinder assembly (12), and a hydraulic circuit coupling the pump and cylinder assembly, wherein the actuator is configured for four-quadrant operation, and the pump is back drivable in two directions. Id. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the actuator for four-quadrant operation, and have the pump be back drivable in two directions as taught by Hewett for the purpose of driving and positioning a load.” Id. Appellant argues that obviousness of claims 1-15 and 17-22 was not established because the Examiner failed to provide a logical explanation for combining Franchet and Hewett. App. Br. 4. Appellant explains that the Examiner’s rationale for combining Franchet and Hewett failed because it was premised on Franchet’s actuator not being able to drive and position a load, the premise being incorrect. Id. While Franchet indeed discloses an actuator that can drive and position a load, we disagree that the Examiner’s basis for modifying Franchet’s actuator for four-quadrant operation was necessarily premised on Franchet being incapable of driving and positioning a load. Indeed, the Examiner explains in greater detail that: Four-quadrant operation allows for the actuator to both drive a load and resist external force applied to the load in both directions of linear travel. Driving and positioning a load requires that the load be positioned with a predictable degree of accuracy and responsiveness for the given application. Franchet et al[.] discloses an actuator for driving and Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 5 positioning a load, but does not explicitly teach that the actuator is configured for four-quadrant operation, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be encouraged to look to Hewett for details concerning a driving configuration. Hewett also discloses an actuator for driving and positioning a load and explicitly teaches that the actuator has a driving configuration configured for four-quadrant operation (Column 2, Lines 10- 31), with the benefits of improved control of piston movement (Column 1, Lines 14-19) in both directions of travel, as well as improved system responsiveness and efficiency (Column 3, Lines 13-39), thus leading to improvements in driving and positioning a load. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner that Hewett teaches using its back- drivable pump to create an actuator capable of four-quadrant operation, and that four-quadrant operation provides improved control of piston movement and improves system responsiveness and efficiency. The Examiner’s stated reason, e.g., improved control of piston movement and improved system responsiveness and efficiency, is rational and sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. For an obvious analysis, there need only be an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a motivation to combine teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellant argues additional bases for reversing the obviousness rejection. Appellant first contends that operation of Hewett’s actuator involves check and circulation valves, while Franchet does not disclose such valves, and that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Franchet would be discouraged from following the approach taken in Hewett. App. Br. 5. Appellant further refers to this discouragement as “teaching away” from the following recitation of claim 1: “actuated axial motion of the piston relative Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 6 to the cylinder bore is accomplished without the use of check valves, pressure regulating valves, or actively controlled valves.” Id. (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Examiner does not address this allegation in the Examiner’s Answer; however, Appellant has not explained why placement of Hewett’s back-drivable pump into Franchet’s actuator would require use of check or circulation valves in Franchet, particularly given that Franchet utilizes a variable-torque motor that is stated in Appellant’s specification to obviate the need for valves. Spec. 16, ll. 16- 22. Appellant also alleges that combining Hewett’s valve-operated actuator technology with Franchet’s valveless technology would change the principle of operation of Franchet, and would therefore not be obvious. App. Br. 6 (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)). Appellant merely states that the principle of operation of Franchet will change without providing sufficient guidance as to why it does. The argument is therefore unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument is also unpersuasive in that it is based upon a mischaracterization of the rejection. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the modification of Franchet in view of Hewett retains Franchet’s features, and simply configures the actuator for four-quadrant operation, as taught by Hewett. Ans. 5-6. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-22 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franchet and Hewett. Claim 16 Appellant does not advance any argument suggesting that claim 16 might be patentable over Franchet, Hewett, and Meyer if claim 1 is unpatentable over Franchet and Hewett. We therefore sustain the rejection Appeal 2010-010437 Application 11/674,600 7 of claim 16 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Franchet, Hewett, and Meyer. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-22 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franchet and Hewett. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franchet, Hewett, and Meyer. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc