Ex Parte TakahashiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 201411992305 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TORU TAKAHASHI ____________________ Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 5-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on May 13, 2014, with Gregory W. Harper, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellant. We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a bearing assembly with a rotation detecting device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A bearing assembly with a rotation detecting device comprising: an inner race; an outer race; rolling elements interposed between the inner race and the outer race; a magnetic generating element provided on the outer ring side of the bearing assembly and having a directionality around a center of rotation of the outer ring so as to confront a bearing center portion of the inner ring; a circuit board provided on the inner ring side and positioned at a bearing axis, the circuit board being directly mounted on an end portion of a shaft incorporated in an inner diametric portion of the inner ring; a sensor provided on the inner ring side and positioned at a bearing axis on the circuit Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 3 board to detect a magnetism of the magnetic generating element to output information on rotation or angle; a signal extracting device to extract a detection signal of the sensor through an interior of the shaft incorporated in the inner diametric portion of the inner ring; and a shaft fixing member to fix the shaft to the inner ring by sandwiching the inner ring from opposite end faces, the shaft fixing member including a flange formed in the end of the shaft and a nut threadingly mounted on the shaft to sandwich the inner ring at a location between the nut and the flange, wherein the shaft is a hollow shaft, and the signal extracting device comprises a cable inserted within a hollow of the hollow shaft and drawn outwardly from an end of the shaft, which is opposite to the end portion thereof where the sensor is fitted. REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peilloud (US 4,998,219, issued Jan. 29, 1991) in view of Yamada (JP2004-239699, published Aug. 26, 2004) and Kitashiro1 (JP02- 203020, published Aug. 13, 1990). Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peilloud in view of Yamada, Kitashiro and Landrieve (WO 2004/025307, published March 25, 2004). 1 Referred to by Appellant and the Examiner in the Brief and Answer as “Hojo”. Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 4 OPINION Claims 1 and 7--§ 103--Peilloud in view of Yamada and Kitashiro The Examiner found that Peilloud discloses a circuit board 22 directly mounted on an end portion of a shaft, which the Examiner considers to be made up of coupled elements referred to in Peilloud as shaft 26 and support disk 28. Ans. 5. Appellant, in arguing that the circuit board of Peilloud is mounted on support disk 28, and not directly to the end portion of shaft 26, is essentially challenging the Examiner’s reliance on members 26 and 28 together as corresponding to the claimed shaft. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that claim 1 contains no structural details relative to the shaft that result in the shaft having to be a one-piece element. Ans. 7. The Examiner’s claim construction, and application of that claim construction in determining that elements 26 and 28 of Peilloud correspond to the claimed shaft, is reasonable. Appellant points to nothing in the Specification that provides a lexicographical definition of the shaft as being only a one-piece element. Appellant further presents no evidence that the term “shaft” is a term recognized in the art as being limited to a one-piece element. The elements Peilloud refers to as a shaft and support disc are fixed to one another, and both are non-rotating elements fixed to an inner ring or race, as is Appellant’s shaft. Peilloud, col.2, ll. 7-13. Appellant, citing to In re Kotzab2, argues that there is no suggestion to modify Peilloud to convert a plurality of elements to arrive at a single element. Appeal Br. 10. The argument misses the mark. The Examiner points out that the rejection does not propose modifying elements 26 and 28 to form a unitary shaft, rather, as noted above, the claimed shaft is being 2 217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 5 interpreted as encompassing a shaft made up of elements 26 and 28. Ans. 7- 8. Appellant further points out that none of Yamada, Kitashiro and Landrieve discloses a circuit board directly mounted to a shaft. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner does not rely on these references in this regard. Appellant cites to three advantages of the claimed invention that are purportedly not realized by the Examiner’s proposed modifications to the Peilloud reference. Appeal Br. 11-12. The first relates directly back to the argument, which we find unpersuasive, that the circuit board is not directly mounted to a shaft. The second purported advantage does not identify any particular deficiency in the Examiner’s proposed modification to Peilloud in view of Kitoshira, to secure the shaft to the inner ring with a nut. The third refers to an advantage stemming from the use of a hollow shaft, which Peilloud discloses. Appellant further appears to argue that the modification of Peilloud in view of Yamada to provide a magnet and a magnetic sensor array, would require “substantial reconstruction or redesign,” and thus would not have been obvious. Appeal Br. 12. More specifically, Appellant notes that, in Yamada, the magnet is on the rotatable member, and the magnetic sensor array is on the non-rotatable member. Id. The Examiner points out that the application of the teaching of Yamada to Peilloud would result in the sensor being mounted to the non-rotating component of Peilloud, and the magnet or signal generating component being placed on the rotating component, just as in Yamada. Appellant’s argument is thus not persuasive of nonobviousness. Appeal 2012-002379 Application 11/992,305 6 Appellant finally states that “even if the rotation sensor apparatus of Yamada was incorporated into Peilloud, Peilloud clearly shows that sensor element 23 of Peilloud is not positioned at a bearing axis as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12. This argument, too, misses the mark, in that the Examiner relies on Yamada as teaching the positioning of the sensors at the bearing axis. Ans. 5, 10. Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and that rejection is sustained. The rejection is sustained as to claim 7 as well, in that no separate arguments for patentability were advanced with respect to claim 7. Appeal Br. 13. Claims 5 and 6--§ 103--Peilloud/Yamada/Kitashiro/Landrieve Appellant relies solely on the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 for the patentability of claims 5 and 6. Appeal Br. 13. The rejection of claims 5 and 6 is thus sustained. DECISION The rejections of claims 1 and 5-7 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation