Ex Parte Serrels (Deceased) et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2012

11459375 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD K. SERRELS (DECEASED), PETER J. SAVAGIAN, and MATTHEW D. LABA Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 - 2 - STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is a system to drive electronic accessories on a vehicle. Spec. 1, para [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A drive system adapted to power one or more vehicle accessories comprising: a motor configured to generate torque to drive said one or more accessories; an accessory drive belt operatively connected with said motor, said accessory drive belt configured to transfer the torque generated by the motor to said one or more accessories; and a motor clutch operatively connected with said motor and said accessory drive belt, said motor clutch configured to selectively couple the motor to the accessory drive belt such that torque is transferable from the motor to the accessories, said motor clutch further being configured to selectively decouple the motor from the accessory drive belt such that the accessory drive belt may be driven by an alternate power source without incurring an efficiency loss attributable to backdriving the motor. Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 - 3 - THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Heimark Brunetiere Brunetiere US 5,909,075 W0 2004/053327 A1 US 2006/0145643 A1 Jun. 1, 1999 Jun. 24, 2004 Jul. 6, 2006 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Brunetiere (W02004/053327 A1).1 2. Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brunetiere and Heimark. ANALYSIS Rejection 1 – Anticipation Based on Brunetiere The Examiner finds that Brunetiere discloses a drive system adapted to power one or more vehicle accessories. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, Brunetiere’s alternator-starter (or ATD) meets the claim limitation directed to a motor. Ans. 4. Similarly, Brunetiere’s belt (feature 5 in Figure 1B) satisfies the claim limitation directed to a drive belt. Id. Finally, Brunetiere’s selector S meets the claim limitation directed to a motor clutch. Id. Appellants argue that Brunetiere’s ATD is not an “engine” and that a vehicle internal combustion engine may never be termed an “accessory.” 1 This opinion shall hereinafter cite to the English equivalent version of Brunetiere, namely, U.S. Published Application No. US 2006/0145643 A1. Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 - 4 - App. Br. 9. Finally, Appellants argue that Brunetiere is not “configured to” within the meaning of the claims. App. Br. 11.2 With respect to Appellants’ argument that an alternator-starter can never be an “engine” and that an engine can never be an” accessory,” it is not necessary for us to formally construe either “engine” or “accessory” to decide the instant appeal. Vivid Tech., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). As noted by the Examiner, the word “engine” is not present in claim 1. Ans. 10. Furthermore, we do not need to formally construe “accessory” to ascertain whether an internal combustion engine can be an “accessory.” Brunetiere expressly discloses embodiments where the ATD motor driven belt applies torque to accessories other than an internal combustion engine: the pulleys 6 and 7 which rotate as one with the belt 4 and the belt 5 respectively may drive accessories (not depicted in the figure, for example the power steering, the air conditioning, the water pump, etc[.]). Brunetiere p. 3, para. [0053]. Appellants’ Specification characterizes power steering, air conditioning, and water pumps as belt driven accessories. Spec. 2 Claim 1 actually contains three limitations containing the language “configured to.” In the first instance, the motor is “configured to” generate torque to drive accessories. In the second instance, an accessory drive belt is “configured to” transfer torque to accessories. In the third instance, a motor clutch is “configured to” selectively couple the motor to the accessory drive belt. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Appellants’ brief does not specify which of these instances is referred to. We will treat Appellants’ argument as applying to all such instances. Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 - 5 - p.1, para. [0003]. Thus, we find that Brunetiere satisfies the following limitation in claim 1, without reaching the question of whether an internal combustion engine is an accessory. an accessory drive belt operatively connected with said motor, said accessory drive belt configured to transfer the torque generated by the motor to said one or more accessories[.] App. Br., Clms. App’x. Finally, we reject Appellants’ position regarding the language “configured to” in claim 1. Even under Appellants’ interpretation of “configured to,” Brunetiere discloses a motor that is “configured to” generate torque as it states that: “[d]uring the starting phase, the shaft 1 of the alternator-starter is driving and the selector becomes coupled to the pulley 2.” Brunetiere, p. 3, para. [0046]. Similarly, Brunetiere discloses a drive belt that is “configured to” transfer torque to accessories as it discloses that pulleys 6 and 7 which rotate as one with the belt 4 and the belt 5 respectively may drive accessories. Id. at para. [0053]. Finally, Brunetiere’s selector S is a clutch that is “configured to” selectively couple the motor to the accessory drive belt. Id. at para. [0045] – [0048]. This yields a transmission system with transmission ratios in which the switching from one to the other occurs . . . according to whether this torque is generated by the alternator-starter ATD or by the engine M. Brunetiere, para. [0048]. Furthermore, we also agree with the Examiner that the limitation is met because Brunetiere is capable of providing the claimed function(s). See e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation found where prior art was found to be capable of performing the claimed function). Appeal 2010-010142 Application 11/459,375 - 6 - Accordingly, because the Examiner correctly found that all of the limitations of claim 1 are met by Brunetiere, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Brunetiere under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Rejection 2 – Unpatentability over Brunetiere and Heimark Appellants offered no arguments for the patentability of claims 2-14 other than the same arguments advanced in traversing the rejection to claim 1. Inasmuch as we have found that claim 1 is anticipated by Brunetiere, claim 1 is necessarily also obvious over Brunetiere. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (in the absence of objective evidence of nonobviousness, a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103). Since Appellants have not separately argued for the patentability of claims 2-14, such claims stand or fall with claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-14. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 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 hh