Ex Parte Exner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

13385539 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/385,539
116845 7590
Terrance A. Meador
Achates Power, Inc.
FILING DATE
02/23/2012
04/18/2018
4060 Sorrento Valley Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christina Exner
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.
ACHP3001US 4004
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2018 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 CHRISTINA EXNER and JAMES U. LEMKE
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/3 85,539 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellants identify Achates Power, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An opposed-piston, internal combustion engine
including one or more ported cylinders that are juxtaposed and
oriented with exhaust and intake ports mutually aligned, a pair
of crankshafts mounted at respective exhaust and intake ends of
the cylinders, and a pair of pistons disposed for opposed sliding
movement in the bore of each cylinder, all of the pistons
controlling the exhaust ports being coupled by connecting rods
to the crankshaft mounted near at the exhaust ends of the
cylinders, and all of the pistons controlling the intake ports
being coupled by connecting rods to the crankshaft mounted
near at the intake ends of the cylinders, in which the crankshafts
are connected by a port timing adjustment mechanism operative
to change the exhaust and/ or intake port timing, the port timing
adjustment mechanism including sprockets on ends of the
crankshafts, a belt or a chain connecting the sprockets, and two
tensioners, each tensioner operatively engaging a respective
span of the belt or chain and positionable so as to vary the
length of the respective span.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Feeback us 3,485,221
Lemke et al. US 2005/0274332 Al
(hereinafter "Lemke 2005")
Cleeves US 2008/0047530 Al
Lemke US 2010/0071671 Al
(hereinafter "Lemke 201 O")
Dec. 23, 1969
Dec. 15, 2005
Feb.28,2008
Mar. 25, 2010
Alonso US 2010/0282219 Al Nov. 11, 2010
2
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Feeback and Cleeves.
II. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alonso, Lemke 2005, and Lemke 2010.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner's findings stated in the Final
Office Action at pages 2-10 and the Answer at pages 2-13, except as stated
otherwise in the Analysis below. Additional findings of fact may appear in
the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 4
Independent claims 1 and 4 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 5-9. 2
Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants present three reasons why claim 1 was rejected
erroneously, each of which is addressed in tum, below.
First, the Appellants argue that neither Feeback nor Cleeves describes
or suggests claim 1 's recited "port timing adjustment mechanism operative
to change the exhaust and/or intake port timing." Appeal Br. 6. To the
contrary, however, as the Examiner finds, Feeback's embodiment of
Figure 3 teaches "adjust[ing] the phase of one crank with respect to the
other," which will adjust the intake and exhaust port timing, because such an
2 Citations to the Appeal Brief refer to the "Amended Applicant's Brief on
Appeal" filed September 27, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
adjustment in crankshaft phase affects when the intake and exhaust ports
open and close. See Answer 8 (quoting Feeback, col. 4, 11. 56-57). This
disclosure satisfies the identified limitation of claim 1. Although the
Appellants contend that Cleeves cannot alter port timing, by varying the
phase relationship of its crankshafts (Appeal Br. 6), the rejection does not
rely upon Cleeves for the "port timing adjustment" feature. See Answer 9;
see also Final Action 2.
In the second argument for error in the rejection of claim 1, the
Appellants contend that the identified Feeback and Cleeves references may
not be combined, so as to achieve the recited "port timing adjustment
mechanism including ... two tensioners, each tensioner operatively
engaging a respective span of the belt or chain and positionable so as to vary
the length of the respective span." See Appeal Br. 6-7.
The rejection meets this limitation, by combining Feeback's
positionable sprockets, which are used to adjust the port timing (see Final
Action 5 (citing Feeback, col. 4, 11. 54---61 ); see also Answer 9), with
Cleeves' belt/chain tensioners, which are used to manipulate the phase
relationship between interconnected sprockets (see Appeal Br. 6 (citing
Cleeves i-f 111, Figs. 13A, 13B); see also Answer 9).
The Appellants contend that Feeback and Cleeves may not be so
combined, because Feeback advocates changing engine compression ratio
(associated with the timing adjustment at issue) "infrequently and slowly"
and that "[t]here is no need for speed in this task." Appeal Br. 7. Such
conditions, along with Feeback's preference for a low-cost and simple
design, the Appellants argue, are at odds with Cleeves' technique for making
such adjustment, which may be implemented on-the-fly during engine
4
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
operation. Appeal Br. 7-8 (citing Feeback, col. 2, 11. 24--29, which states
that "objects of the invention are to provide a novel and improved
omnitorque opposed piston engine which is simple in its basic form, may be
manufactured with conventional, readily available components with a
minimum of special machining operations, and is a low-cost, neat appearing,
rugged and durable unit.")
To the contrary, as the Examiner finds, even if adjusting the relative
angular positions of Feeback's crankshafts were performed infrequently, this
would not constitute a reason to avoid implementing Cleeves' technique for
making such adjustments more quickly and easily. Answer 10. Moreover,
the Appellants' argument is contrary to Feeback's explicit recognition of the
advantages of other mechanisms for changing the phase relationship
between crankshafts, including techniques that may be implemented during
operation:
The phase shift of the two shafts may also be
accomplished by other mechanisms, not shown, which can be
adjusted while the engine is in operation. Such mechanisms
can be found on other types of machinery and they may be
either mechanically or electrically controlled, or can even be
adapted to change automatically responsive to the speed of the
engine. The advantage is obvious, for an engine may be started
with the crankshafts in a position where the compression ratio
is, say for example, 7 to 1. After it is running at high speed, a
phase shift can then be made where the compression ratio
increases to, say for example, 11 to 1, providing a substantial
increase in power and efficiency in the engine output for the
fuel being used.
Feeback, col. 10, 11. 39-51.
In the third reason for alleged error in the rejection of claim 1, the
Appellants contend that combining Feeback's angular-adjusting sprocket
5
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
(involving set screws to fix each sprocket's angular position, relative to a
respective crankshaft) with the belt/chain tensioning technique of Cleeves is
improper, because such a combination would change Feeback's principle of
operation - thus entailing a substantial reconfiguration, according to the
Appellants, that Feeback does not suggested or motivate. Appeal Br. 8.
Specifically, the Appellants argue that changing the sprocket position in
Feeback does not change the crankshafts' positions, whereas Cleeves uses
the tension in its member 280 (a belt or chain), which connects the
crankshafts, in order to move the crankshafts closer to (or farther apart from)
each other. Id.
However, the Appellants appear to be addressing the embodiment of
Cleeves' Figures 12A-12B, rather than the embodiment of Cleeves' Figures
13A-13B, which is identified in the rejection. See Final Action 6-7 (citing
Cleeves Figs. 13A-13B). Cleeves states that "the mechanism," of the
embodiment of Figures 12A-12B, "used for tensioning the elongate member
262 insures that the two crank shafts stay in the same relative phase as they
are moved closer and farther apart." Cleeves i-f 107. But, Cleeves does not
ascribe any such relative spatial movement of crankshafts to the tensioning
of "elongate member 280" of the embodiment of Figures 13A-13B, which is
cited in the rejection. See Final Action 6-7. Referring to the embodiment of
Figures 13A-13B, Cleeves states that positioning a roller gear against
"elongate member 280" (which may be in the form of a belt or chain)
"brings the bearing sections 126 and 160 to the desired phase angle relative
to one another." Cleeves i-f 113. Thus, like Feeback's sprocket adjustment,
Cleeves' tensioning technique alters the relative angular positions of two
crankshafts. See Feeback, col. 4, 11. 56-64; Cleeves i-f 113. Therefore, the
6
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
Examiner properly finds that applying Cleeves' tensioning technique to
Feeback's engine "would not change the operational principle of Feeback."
Answer 10-11. See also Final Action 3---6.
In view of the foregoing, which applies equally to independent
claim 4, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 5 and Dependent Claims 6 and 7
The Appellants contend that independent claim 5 was rejected
erroneously, based upon the failure of the cited prior art to teach or suggest
three features recited in the claim.
First, the Appellants contend that Alonso fails to teach or suggest
claim 5 's "gear train contained in a stiffened gear train housing," because -
even though the Appellants concede that Figure 5 of Alonso shows a "gear
train" having meshed gears 11 'a, 11 'b, and 11 'c and further concede that
"one would presume that any gear box would contain the gears meshed, as
shown in FIG. 5" -the Appellants nevertheless argue that "it is not clear
that such would be the case with" the housing shown in the embodiment of
Figures 17A-17C and 18A-18E. Appeal Br. 9.
Yet, the record adequately supports the Examiner's finding that
Figures 17 A-17C and 18A-18E of Alonso teach an engine block for use
with a gear train interconnecting the crankshafts. See Answer 11-12. To
begin with, Alonso's Figure 18E shows a wall that defines adjacent gear
bays for accommodating meshed gears. See id. In addition, Alonso teaches
or suggests the use of a gear train in the embodiment of Figures 17 A-17C
and 18A-18E, because the use of intermeshed gears is a preferred technique
7
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
for linking crankshafts disclosed in the reference. See Alonso i-fi-f 14, 30, 39,
56,66,91, 116,Fig. 5.
In the second argument asserting error in the rejection of claim 5, the
Appellants argue that Lemke 2005 does not teach or suggest the recited
"each gear of the gear train being disposed for rotation in the gear train
housing by a bearing in the back panel and a bearing in a gear bearing
support aperture in the removable cover." Appeal Br. 9. This argument is
unpersuasive, because the rejection does not rely upon Lemke 2005 for the
entirety of this feature of claim 5, but only the "removable cover" that
provides a "gear bearing support aperture." See Final Action 9; see also
Answer 13.
In the third argument asserting error in the rejection of claim 5, the
Appellants argue that Lemke 2010 does not teach or suggest the recited
"gear train container" having a "removable cover." Appeal Br. 9-10. This
argument is not persuasive because, as just noted, the rejection relies upon
Lemke 2005 -not Lemke 2010- for this feature. See Final Action 9-10;
see also Answer 13.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellants do not argue persuasively for
error in the rejection of independent claim 5. Because no additional
argument is provided for dependent claims 6 and 7, we sustain the rejection
of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites: "The opposed-piston, internal combustion
engine of claim 5, wherein the removable cover includes ribs extending
between the gear bearing support apertures." The Appellants argue that the
8
Appeal2017-004387
Application 13/385,539
cited references do not teach or suggest the features added by claim 8.
Appeal Br. 9.
According to the rejection, paragraph 52 of Lemke 2010 discloses the
features added by claim 8. See Final Action 10.
However, paragraph 52 of Lemke 2010 refers to a trussed engine
frame, rather than any technique to be applied to a "removable cover," let
alone "ribs extending between the gear bearing support apertures" therein, as
recited in claim 8. Therefore, the rejection has not sufficiently articulated
how Lemke 2010, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the feature
added in dependent claim 8. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9