Ex Parte Ho

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2013

10789744 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WAI YUEN HO
____________________

Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4-7, and 10-15, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a carriage drive system, printer, and method
for printing involving a planetary gear assembly. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A carriage drive system, comprising:
a variable speed drive motor and a gearing mechanism
configured to propel a movable carriage along a slide rod,
wherein the movable carriage supports print heads having an
ink ejecting nozzle, and wherein the gearing mechanism has a
first gear ratio resulting in a high carriage speed and a second
gear ratio resulting in a low carriage speed and comprises a
planetary gear assembly having:
a sun gear driven by the drive motor;
a ring gear; and
a plurality of planet gears arranged between the
sun gear and the ring gear, wherein, at the second gear
ratio, the sun gear rotates and the ring gear is configured
to rotate at a slower angular velocity than the sun gear;
and
a centrifugal clutch operable to enable the gearing
mechanism to switch between the first and second gear ratios

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed June 9, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 1, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 1, 2009) and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed February 9, 2009).
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

3

automatically based upon an operational speed of the drive
motor.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Black

Ito

Kushino2
US 3,780,652

US 5,097,189

JP 2000-104799
Dec. 25, 1973

Mar. 17, 1992

Apr. 11, 2000

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ito in view of Kushino and Black. Ans. 3-9.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 7-16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-6 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 7,
and 14, and dependent claims 4-6, 10-13, and 15, are in error. These
arguments present us with the following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ito, Kushino, and Black teaches a “centrifugal clutch
operable to enable the gearing mechanism to switch
between the first and second gear ratios automatically
based upon an operational speed of the drive motor” that

2 We refer herein to “Kushino” as the English Abstract entered into the
prosecution file on February 9, 2009, and the English translation of the
reference entered into the prosecution file on October 1, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

4

drives a “sun gear,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 7 and 14?
(2) Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination
of Ito, Kushino, and Black renders obvious the subject
matter of claims 1, 7, and 14 because a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to
combine the references?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ito, Kushino, and Black teaches that “operation of the
drive motor at a high speed causes the centrifugal clutch
to engage the ring gear causing the planet gears and the
drive gear to be locked together such that they rotate as
one with the sun gear resulting in a 1:1 gear ratio
between the sun gear and the ring gear,” as recited in
claim 4 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 15?
(4) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ito, Kushino, and Black teaches a speed calibration
member for “adjusting a gear ratio between the drive
motor and the ring gear,” as recited in claim 5 and
similarly recited in claim 11?
(5) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ito, Kushino, and Black teaches that “the gear ratio
between the drive motor and the ring gear is proportional
to a friction force between a planet carrier and the speed
calibration member,” as recited in claim 6 and similarly
recited in claim 12?
(6) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ito, Kushino, and Black teaches a speed calibration
member that is “manually adjustable,” as recited in claim
13?

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 7, and 14
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito, Kushino, and Black does
not teach a “centrifugal clutch operable to enable the gearing mechanism to
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

5

switch between the first and second gear ratios automatically based upon an
operational speed of the drive motor” where a “sun gear [is] driven by the
drive motor,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 14.
App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5-7. Appellant contends that Kushino, which the
Examiner cited as teaching the claimed centrifugal clutch, has a centrifugal
clutch that controls a ring gear based upon the speed of an output shaft, not
the speed of a drive motor that drives an input shaft and sun gear. Id.
Appellant cites the Abstract of Kushino, which states: “Based on the speed
of the output shaft the rotation of the ring gear is controlled with a
centrifugal clutch.” Kushino, Abstract. We disagree with Appellant.
Kushino describes a planetary gear mechanism 12 comprising (A) sun
gear 20, (B) epicyclic gears 25 attached to carrier 24, and (C) ring gear 29.
Kushino ¶¶ 19-23, Figs. 2-3. A motor drives input shaft 18, which is
connected to sun gear 20. Id. ¶¶ 6, 10. Rotation of the sun gear causes
movement in the various other components, ultimately resulting in the
rotation of the output shaft. Id. ¶¶ 10-12, 19-23. Specifically, the input shaft
and sun gear originally rotate in a first direction, the carrier does not rotate,
and the ring gear rotates in the opposite direction of the sun gear. Id. ¶¶ 10-
12. As a result of the rotation of the ring gear, a two-way clutch locks the
ring gear and prevents its rotation. Id. ¶ 10. “Afterwards, the rotation of the
input shaft and the sun gear will rotate the output shaft via the carrier at a
predetermined speed reduction ratio.” Id. After a predetermined number of
rotations, though, the clutch mechanism engages the ring gear and output
shaft, causing the ring gear to rotate in the same direction as the input shaft;
“[a]t this point, the speed reduction ratio will be represented as 1/1.” Id. ¶
11. Kushino discloses that the clutch mechanism may be a centrifugal
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

6

clutch. Id. ¶ 16.
Appellant’s argument overlooks the fundamental operation of a
planetary gear assembly where any of the three components – the sun gear,
planetary gears and their carrier, and ring gear – can serve as the input or
output or be held stationary, and different gear ratios can be achieved
depending on which components are chosen as the input and output. See
Ans. 10-11. The centrifugal clutch in Kushino switches gear ratios as a
result of the rotation of a number of components beginning with the input
shaft and sun gear rotated by the drive motor. Absent input from the drive
motor, the centrifugal clutch would never perform its function. We concur
with the Examiner’s factual findings as follows:
While it is true that the speed of the output shaft affects the
rotation of the ring gear, it is also true that the motion of the
output shaft is directly controlled by the motion of the input
shaft. If this were not the case, the planetary gear mechanism
could not operate normally. It is the entire planetary gear
mechanism (and not simply components of it), which enable the
gear ratio change disclosed in the claimed invention. The
centrifugal clutch kicks in and the gear ratio is changed as [a]
result of drive motor input; no drive motor input means no gear
switching output. The drive motor, input shaft, output shaft,
sun gear, and ring gear are all components of an integrated
planetary gear assembly and thus switching gears must always
be a result of drive motor input either directly or indirectly.
Ans. 11-12.
Appellant further argues that in some planetary gear assemblies used
in automobiles, the speed of the output shaft is “not necessarily” tied to the
input shaft, such as when the output shaft is “disengaged” from the input
shaft and “rotates freely” until reengaged through the clutch assembly.
Reply Br. 6. We see no indication, however – and Appellant has not pointed
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

7

to any – that the output shaft in Kushino is ever disconnected in that fashion.
For the reasons explained above, Kushino discloses a centrifugal clutch
operable to enable a gearing mechanism to switch between gear ratios
automatically “based upon an operational speed of the drive motor.”
Appellant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had no reason to combine Ito and Black, which pertain to printing
systems, with Kushino, which pertains to a clutch assembly for use in a
motor vehicle. Reply Br. 6-7. According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill
would not have looked to Kushino’s clutch assembly because it is designed
for “more rugged operations” and is “overly-complicated and thus overly-
expensive to be practical in a printer assembly.” Id. Appellant, however,
does not address the Examiner’s stated reasons for why a skilled artisan
would have combined the cited references or explain why the Examiner’s
reasons are wrong. Specifically, the Examiner found that a person of
ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate the Kushino clutch
assembly into the printer system of Ito to “gain the benefit of providing more
reliable speed drive motor control and therefore more accurate printing via
the dual speed gear/clutch arrangement.” Ans. 9. The Examiner supported
this finding by citing Black as evidence that it was generally known in the
art to “incorporate two way clutch systems into a printer driver system.” Id.
(citing Black, col. 11, ll. 11-24). Thus, even though Kushino relates to
motor vehicles rather than printers, a skilled artisan would understand that
clutch assemblies are useful in printer systems. See id. The Examiner
therefore provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We see no error in the
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

8

Examiner’s proposed combination and concur that the combination of Ito,
Kushino, and Black would have rendered obvious the subject matter of the
claims. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 14.

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 10, and 15
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito, Kushino, and Black does
not teach the feature that “operation of the drive motor at a high speed
causes the centrifugal clutch to engage the ring gear causing the planet gears
and the drive gear to be locked together such that they rotate as one with the
sun gear resulting in a 1:1 gear ratio between the sun gear and the ring gear,”
as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 15. App. Br. 11-
12; Reply Br. 7. Appellant cites the Abstract of Kushino, which states:
“When exceeding [a] predetermined value, a centrifugal clutch (13) prevents
the rotation of the ring gear.” Kushino, Abstract. According to Appellant, a
1:1 gear ratio between the sun gear and ring gear in Kushino does not occur
because the clutch engagement prevents any rotation of the ring gear. App.
Br. 11-12. Appellant’s argument, however, overlooks Kushino’s disclosure
that after a predetermined number of rotations, the clutch mechanism
engages the ring gear and output shaft and “the ring gear rotates in the same
direction as the input shaft” such that “the speed reduction ratio will be
represented as 1/1.” Kushino ¶ 11 (emphasis added). Thus, the ring gear
rotates when the centrifugal clutch engages it in the manner described above.
Appellant identifies no other alleged error in the Examiner’s reasoning to
overcome the obviousness conclusion as to claims 4, 10, and 15. See Ans. 7,
9, 12-13. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 10,
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

9

and 15.

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5 and 11
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito, Kushino, and Black does
not teach a speed calibration member for “adjusting a gear ratio between the
drive motor and the ring gear,” as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in
claim 11. App. Br. 12-14. Similar to the argument made with respect to
claims 4, 10, and 15, Appellant contends that engagement of the centrifugal
clutch in Kushino prevents rotation of the ring gear and therefore a gear ratio
between the drive motor and ring gear cannot be adjusted. Id. We disagree
with Appellant for the reasons explained above regarding claims 4, 10, and
15. See, e.g., Kushino ¶ 11 (disclosing rotation of the ring gear). Appellant
identifies no other alleged error in the Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the
obviousness conclusion as to claims 5 and 11. See Ans. 7, 14. Accordingly,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 11.

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 12
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito, Kushino, and Black does
not teach the feature that “the gear ratio between the drive motor and the
ring gear is proportional to a friction force between a planet carrier and the
speed calibration member,” as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in
claim 12. App. Br. 14-15. Again, similar to the argument made with respect
to claims 4, 10, and 15, Appellant contends that engagement of the
centrifugal clutch in Kushino prevents rotation of the ring gear and therefore
the gear ratio between the drive motor and ring gear in Kushino cannot be
proportional to a friction force. Id. We disagree with Appellant for the
Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

10

reasons explained above regarding claims 4, 10, and 15. See, e.g., Kushino ¶
11 (disclosing rotation of the ring gear). Appellant identifies no other
alleged error in the Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the obviousness
conclusion as to claims 6 and 12. See Ans. 7-8, 14-15. Accordingly, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 12.

Obviousness Rejection of Claim 13
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito, Kushino, and Black does
not teach a speed calibration member that is “manually adjustable,” as
recited in claim 13. App. Br. 14-15. Again, similar to the argument made
with respect to claims 4, 10, and 15, Appellant contends that engagement of
the centrifugal clutch in Kushino prevents rotation of the ring gear and
therefore there can be no manually adjustable speed calibration member that
adjusts a gear ratio between the drive motor and ring gear in Kushino. Id.
We disagree with Appellant for the reasons explained above regarding
claims 4, 10, and 15. See, e.g., Kushino ¶ 11 (disclosing rotation of the ring
gear). Appellant identifies no other alleged error in the Examiner’s
reasoning to overcome the obviousness conclusion as to claim 13. See Ans.
8, 15-16. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 13.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 4-7, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-003766
Application 10/789,744

11

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-7,
and 10-15 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

peb