Ex Parte Fan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2013

11726091 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

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. 11/726,091 03/21/2007 Xinjian Fan P07-029A 7717 26683 7590 08/29/2013 THE GATES CORPORATION IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3 1551 WEWATTA STREET DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER MOMPER, ANNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2013 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 XINJIAN FAN, JING YUAN, LIN ZHU, and YUDING FENG ____________________ Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-4.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The rejected claims are directed to a motorcycle wheel isolator hub, which the Specification describes as filtering or reducing torsional vibration and impact load during motorcycle operation and gear shifting (Spec. 3, ll. 29-31). Claim 1, which is the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 1. A motorcycle wheel isolator comprising: a first sprocket member, the first sprocket member having a first projecting member; a second hub member, the second hub member having at least two second projecting members; the first projecting member disposed between two second projecting members, whereby a receiving portion is defined; at least one resilient isolator having a first portion and a second portion connected by a connecting member, the resilient isolator disposed in the receiving portion, the first portion and second portion being of unequal sizes such that the larger first portion is compressed during a first vehicle driving direction and the second portion is 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 21, 2007), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December 16, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 11, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 16, 2011). Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 3 compressed during a second vehicle driving direction; an edge of each first portion and second portion having a chamfer disposed adjacent either the first projecting member or second projecting member; the first portion having a first portion first projecting member and a first portion second projecting member and the second portion having a second portion first projecting member and a second portion second projecting member disposed on an outer surface of each first portion and second portion such that a compressive force applied to the first portion and second portion causes a bending mode in each first portion and second portion; the first portion and the second portion each comprising a first concave recess, each first concave recess in facing relation and each first concave recess extending normal to a radius (R) originating at a center of curvature (C); the second portion comprising a second portion second recess such that the second portion comprises two loading paths for the second portion, the second portion second recess disposed opposite the second portion first recess; the connecting member disposed adjacent the concave recesses; and each first portion and second portion having a relief portion disposed on an outer surface such that the first portion and second portion may expand under the compressive force. Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 4 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tabuchi (US 6,802,779 B2, iss. Oct. 12, 2004) in view of Iwabuchi (US 5,564,981, iss. Oct. 15, 1996). ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as unpatentable over a combination of Tabuchi and Iwabuchi. Appellants argue the rejection is in error, stating that neither Tabuchi nor Iwabuchi teaches the limitations of the first portion [of the resilient isolator] having a first portion first projecting member and a first portion second projecting member and the second portion [of the resilient isolator] having a second portion first projecting member and a second portion second projecting member disposed on an outer surface of each first portion and second portion such that a compressive force applied to the first portion and second portion causes a bending mode in each first portion and second portion. Specifically, Appellants first argue these features are not taught by Tabuchi (App. Br. 8-9). We note, however, that the Examiner relies on Iwabuchi to teach this limitation, stating Tabuchi . . . fails to explicitly disclose each first portion and second portion having a first and second projecting members disposed on an outer surface of each first portion and second portion such that a compressive force applied to the first portion and second portion causes a bending mode in each first portion and second portion. Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 5 Iwabuchi . . . discloses . . . a plurality of axially extending projections (10E) located on the outer surfaces of said elastic body and extending in an axial direction (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), such that a compressive force applied to the first portion and second portion causes a bending mode in each first portion and second portion (Ans. 6). Appellants then argue these features are not taught by Iwabuchi, because in “Iwabuchi projections 10E are disposed opposite each other, [so that] any compressive load applied to member 10 will result in coaxial vectors acting outwardly from each projection 10E . . ., hence, there is no couple and therefore no bending moment induced in member 10” (App. Br. 10). We note, however, that contrary to Appellants’ further argument in the Reply Brief (at 1-3), claim 1 does not require that forces applied through plate 11 or any other specific structure of Iwabuchi result in the claimed bending mode. Rather, claim 1 only requires that application of a compressive force at some location to the first and second portions of the resilient isolator cause a bending mode in each portion because of the projections on both sides of each portion. As the Examiner points out, as a result of the projections in Iwabuchi the application of compressive forces at some locations on the first and second portions would cause a bending mode in the portions (Ans. 10-12). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants additionally argue there is no motivation to combine the references, because neither reference teaches the above limitation of claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Because we find that Iwabuchi does teach the above limitation, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appeal 2011-007834 Application 11/726,091 6 Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, which depend from claim 1 and which Appellants did not argue separately. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 is AFFIRMED. 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 mls