Ex Parte Kummer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2019

11694513 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/694,513 03/30/2007
10291 7590 04/04/2019
FISHMAN STEW ART PLLC
39533 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-0610
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin E. Kummer
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.
65856-0105 1086
EXAMINER
HLAVKA, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@fishstewip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAR TIN E. KUMMER
Appeal2018-001413 1
Application 11/694,513 2
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 21, 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he disclosure relates to clutches for torque
transmission." Spec. ,r 1.
1 Our Decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 17,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 27, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 26, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Sept. 12, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Eaton Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 9, and 24 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A clutch apparatus comprising:
a clutch pack having a plurality of friction disks, wherein
the clutch pack will selectively transfer torque from a torque
supplying member to a first torque receiving member;
a first cooling fluid inlet having a first effective fluid flow
area and located at a first axial location, wherein at least a portion
of the fluid is supplied through the first cooling inlet to a first
friction surf ace of the clutch pack; and
a second cooling inlet having a second effective fluid flow
area that is greater than the first effective fluid flow area, the
second cooling inlet located at a second axial location that is
different from the first axial location, wherein the fluid is
supplied through the second cooling inlet to a second friction
surface of the clutch pack, and wherein the second cooling fluid
inlet supplies a greater volumetric flow of the fluid to the second
friction surface than the volumetric flow of the first cooling inlet
to the first friction surface.
Appeal Br. 21.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Ichikawa. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over either Braford4 or Hegerath5 and further in view of
Ichikawa.
3 Ichikawa et al., US 2006/0113157 Al, pub. June 1, 2006.
4 Braford, US 2006/0086586 Al, pub. Apr. 27, 2006.
5 Hegerath, US 2004/0206599 Al, pub. Oct. 21, 2004.
2
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
3. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over either Braford or Hegerath and further in view of Ichikawa and
Bums, 6 Duan, 7 and/or Haviland. 8
4. The Examiner rejects claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over either Braford or Hegerath and further in view of Ichikawa, Bums or
Duan, and Haviland.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has not
shown that Ichikawa anticipates claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ichikawa discloses a
clutch apparatus including a clutch pack, first cooling fluid inlet, and second
cooling inlet as claimed. Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds
wherein the second cooling fluid inlet supplies a greater
volumetric flow of the fluid to the second friction surface than
the volumetric flow of the first cooling inlet to the first friction
surface (See paragraph 0097. Given that the first two sentences
of paragraph 0097 indicate that the oil holes of 7b may be
selected to supply a substantially even amount of lubricating oil,
the final sentence of paragraph 0097 suggests that the second
cooling inlet may be further enlarged arbitrarily from figure 7b,
in which the oil holes supply a substantially even supply of
lubricating oil, to a cross sectional area in which the oil holes
supply an greater supply of lubricating oil.).
6 Bums et al., US 2006/0131122 Al, pub. June 22, 2006.
7 Duan et al., US 2004/0159523 Al, pub. Aug. 19, 2004.
8 Haviland, "Clutch Surface Temperature Measurements in a Controlled-
Coupling Automatic Transmission," Society of Automotive Engineers,
National Fuels & Lubricants Meeting, 1962.
3
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that because Ichikawa discloses
arbitrarily enlarging oil hole sizes, Ichikawa discloses supplying a greater
supply of lubricating oil at these enlarged holes. Regarding this point, the
Examiner further states that "[a] larger hole would necessarily experience
greater volumetric fluid flow with all else being equal, and a greater fluid
flow would necessarily conduct heat away faster from the clutch to lower the
temperature of the clutch." Id. at 11 (citing Ichikawa ,r 97).
However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established that Ichikawa discloses a second cooling fluid inlet that supplies
a greater volumetric flow of the fluid than the first cooling inlet, as required
by the claim. First, we agree with Appellant that Ichikawa discloses that the
goal of the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner is "to supply the
lubricating oil to any position on the outer periphery side of the hub 10
substantially evenly." Ichikawa ,r 97. This goal is consistent with the
problems with the prior art identified in Ichikawa, which Ichikawa seeks to
solve. See id. at ,r,r 10, 11, 31. As such, we disagree with the Examiner's
interpretation of Ichikawa's paragraph 97 as disclosing enlarged holes such
that lubricating oil is not distributed substantially equally to the outer
periphery of the hub. See Ans. 3--4. This sentence states:
Also, the total cross sectional area on the frontal side of the oil
holes provided in a part with a small inner diameter of the inner
peripheral surface of the outer cylindrical portion 11 or in an
innermost part may be enlarged by arbitrarily setting both the
number of the oil holes 13 and the cross sectional area thereof.
Ichikawa ,r 97. Although there may be some ambiguity in this statement, we
agree with Appellant that this sentence is more appropriately interpreted
consistent with Ichikawa's goal of providing an even distribution of
lubricating oil such that it indicates only that the total cross-sectional area of
4
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
all holes may be arbitrary enlarged while still keeping lubricating oil
distributed substantially evenly.
Further, regarding the Examiner finding that enlarging holes
necessarily creates greater volumetric flow, we are not persuaded. Final
Act. 11. Rather, we agree with Appellant that, as the Examiner appears to
acknowledge, volumetric flow is affected by other factors beyond hole size.
See Reply Br. 3--4. Thus, the mere enlargement of holes or greater number
of holes on one side of Figures 7 A and 7B of Ichikawa does not necessarily
indicate greater volumetric flow in the device. In fact, based on Ichikawa's
disclosure that these variations in holes create a substantially even
distribution of lubricating oil, Ichikawa at least suggests that the volumetric
flow at each of the rows of holes in these figures is substantially equal.
Thus, the Examiner has not established that Ichikawa discloses first
and second cooling flow inlets as required by claim 1. For this reason, we
are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 as anticipated.
Obviousness
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 24 requires first and second
cooling inlets such that a greater amount of fluid flows through the second
cooling inlet. See Appeal Br. 21, 22, 24. The Examiner relies on Ichikawa
as above regarding these limitations. See, e.g., Final Act. 5---6. The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to replace the cooling
inlets of Braford or Hegerath with cooling inlets of different flow
areas on both arms (98, 100) of hub (86) of Braford or the arms
of hub ( 11) of Hegerath, since a person of ordinary skill is a
5
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
person of ordinary creativity with a degree in mechanical
engineering and such a modification would have been the
combination of prior art elements according to known methods,
in view of the teachings of Ichikawa, to yield predictable results.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
resize cooling inlets (99, 100; paragraph 0036 would implied that
holes 99 and 100 could be formed from a plurality of holes) of
Braford or cooling inlets (36) ofHegerath, in a manner consistent
with claims 1, 6 and 9, wherein the second inlet has a greater
flow area than the first inlet, since Ichikawa teaches that it is
known to vary the size of the cooling inlets ( see paragraph 0097).
Id. at 6. However, as discussed above, the Examiner has not established that
Ichikawa teaches first and second cooling inlets such that the second cooling
inlet provides greater volumetric flow. And although Ichikawa provides for
different sizes of oil holes, as discussed above, these sizes are required to
provide substantially even oil distribution. Thus, the Examiner has not
established either that the art of record teaches the elements of the claims or
that it would have been obvious to create cooling inlets with different
volumetric flows based on Ichikawa.
As another alternative, the Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to resize the cooling inlets of the prior art such that the second inlet
provides greater volumetric flow because "such a modification would have
involved a mere change in size of a component." Final Act. 7. Although
changing the size of a component may be an obvious thing to do, the
Examiner has not established that changing the size of any component of the
prior art based on effecting even fluid distribution, as taught by Ichikawa, in
order to arrive at the claimed invention would have been obvious. As
discussed, the claim requires fluid inlets with different volumetric flow, and
the Examiner alternate rationale that a change in component size would have
6
Appeal 2018-001413
Application 11/694,513
been obvious does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reason to specifically modify the art to provide first and second
cooling inlets with the relative flow rates claimed.
Based on the foregoing and because the Examiner does not rely on
any of the art of record to cure the deficiencies discussed, we are persuaded
of error in the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 24.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of 1, 9, and 24 as obvious. For
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-7,
11-16, and 21.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11-16, 21, and 24.
REVERSED
7