Ex Parte Exner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 18, 201813385539 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation