Ex Parte Kaiser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

11598371 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

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. 11/598,371 11/13/2006 Clenemts J. Kaiser 6440.160 9228 28410 7590 11/15/2012 BERENATO & WHITE, LLC 6550 ROCK SPRING DRIVE SUITE 240 BETHESDA, MD 20817 EXAMINER WINNER, TONY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2012 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 CLENEMTS J. KAISER and JOSEPH R. PALERMO, JR. ____________ Appeal 2010-007761 Application 11/598,371 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007761 Application 11/598,371 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Seguchi (US 6,401,849 B1; iss. Jun. 11, 2002) and Robison1 (US 6,491,126 B1; iss. Dec. 10, 2002). App. Br. 2, 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ representative presented oral argument in this appeal on November 9, 2012. We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. A motorized personnel carrier comprising: a. independently suspended a left front wheel and a right front wheel, operatively coupled to a first drive mechanism; b. a pair of universal joints disposed between said left front wheel and said first drive mechanism; c. left rear and right rear wheels operatively coupled to a second drive mechanism; d. a first reversably rotatable electric motor selectively engagable with said first drive mechanism; e. a second reversably rotatable electric motor engagable with said second drive mechanism; f. an electric battery; and g. a device to selectively mechanically engage and disengage said first electric motor to and from said first drive mechanism. 1 Appellants and the Examiner refer to this reference as “Robinson.” See, e.g., App. Br. 4; Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-007761 Application 11/598,371 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Seguchi discloses a motorized personnel carrier with front and rear and left and right drive wheels, first and second reversibly rotatable electric motors, and an electric battery 600 but lacks a pair of universal joints and independently suspended front wheels. Ans. 3. The Examiner found that Robison has universal joints and an independent suspension system and determined that it would have been obvious to add such joints to Seguchi to provide smoother torque transmission to the front wheels. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also found that Seguchi lacks a device for selectively engaging/disengaging the motor from the drive system but took official notice that such devices are old and well known in the transmission art to allow a device to fit requirements of a particular application. Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that Appellants’ Specification admits that those skilled in mechanical transmissions would know how to apply various designs of such a device. Ans. 4 (citing Spec. 7). Appellants argue that although engagement/disengagement devices are old and well known in the transmission art, “it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a device to selectively mechanically engage and disengage the electric motor to and from the drive mechanism.” App. Br. 5. Appellants assert that such devices are needed for gas vehicles to disengage the drive mechanism from the internal combustion engine to start the engine and when the vehicle stops and the engine remains running. App. Br. 5-6. In contrast to gas engines, Appellants argue that “electric motors can be easily stopped or started while mechanically connected to the drive mechanism of the electric powered machines or power tools” as “it is sufficient to simply Appeal 2010-007761 Application 11/598,371 4 electrically disconnect the electric motor from the source of electric power, such as an electric storage battery.” App. Br. 6. Appellants also assert that Seguchi illustrates this “accepted wisdom in the art” by “switch[ing] between the four-wheel-drive mode and the two-wheel drive mode by controlling a value of the current supplied to the coil 1211 of the dynamo- electric apparatus 1200, not by mechanically engaging and disengaging the electric motor (the dynamo-electric apparatus 1200) to and from the drive mechanism in the electric vehicles.” App. Br. 8-9. Appellants assert “the Examiner fails to present any piece of prior art or evidence showing the use of a mechanical engagement/disengagement device in an electric vehicle, or in any electric motor driven machine, tool or application.” Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had reason to include a mechanical engagement and disengagement device on the electric drive vehicle of Seguchi. Although the Examiner has established that such devices are well-known in vehicles with internal combustion engines, the Examiner has not explained why a skilled artisan would have used such a device on the electric vehicle of Seguchi, particularly when Seguchi adjusts the torque that is applied to the front and rear wheels by controlling the value of the current applied to the electrical drive coil 1211. Seguchi, col. 6, ll. 26-31; App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner’s further finding that engagement/disengagement devices are analogous to the claimed invention because they are interposed between a power source and transmission and disconnect the power source from an output shaft (Ans. 5) does not explain why a skilled artisan would have had a reason to add such a device to Seguchi when Seguchi reduces torque to the front or rear wheels to Appeal 2010-007761 Application 11/598,371 5 “0” by adjusting current to the electric drive. Appellants’ statement that skilled artisans of mechanical power transmission systems understand how to provide a manually operable means to disengage the motor from the gear that it drives in the differential (Spec. 7) is not an admission that it would have been obvious to provide such means on an electric vehicle as claimed. We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-8. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-8. REVERSED hh