Ex Parte VOGEL

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 2019

13845012 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/845,012 03/17/2013 20676 7590 01/23/2019 ALFRED J MANGELS 4729 CORNELL ROAD CINCINNATI, OH 452412433 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Florian VOGEL 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. P090388-10WOUS 2940 EXAMINER SETLIFF, MATTHIEU F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3678 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2019 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 FLORIAN VOGEL Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, AMEE A. SHAH, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 28, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 22, 2017), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 17, 2013, as amended July 2, 2015), and to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 22, 2017) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 29, 2016). 2 According to the Appellant, the real parties in interest are the inventor (Florian Vogel), LuK GmbH & Co. KG, and Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant's invention "relates to a clamping device for a shaft- hub connection in a torque-transferring device in a drivetrain of a vehicle." Spec. 1, 11. 14--15. Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 (Appeal Br. A-1-A-2) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with added bracketing for reference): 1. A clamping device for an axially engageable shaft- hub connection in a torque-transferring device in a drive train of a vehicle, said clamping device comprising: [(a)] an axial spline connection between an externally toothed shaft and an internally toothed hub for an axial plug connection of the externally toothed shaft and the internally toothed hub; [ (b)] a toothed ring for circumferentially clamping the externally toothed shaft and the internally toothed hub when they form the axial spline connection, [ ( c)] wherein the toothed ring includes an annular body having teeth with intervening recesses formed on one of a radially inner circumferential edge and a radially outer circumferential edge, and includes a plurality of fastening tongues carried by the annular body and extending circumferentially relative to the annular body from one of the radially inner circumferential edge and the radially outer circumferential edge of the annular body, [(d)] wherein the fastening tongues have a curvature in the axial direction of the toothed ring and have a second end connected to the annular body of the toothed ring and a first end spaced circumferentially from the second end and spaced axially from the annular body, the first end adapted to be connected to one of the toothed components that form the axial spline connection, [ ( e)] wherein the fastening tongues have elasticity and have a curvature relative to an axial direction of the annular 2 Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 body of the toothed ring, so that when the first ends of the fastening tongues are attached to one of the toothed components that form the axial spline connection, the one toothed component to which the fastening tongue first ends are attached and the annular body of the toothed ring lie in different axial planes, [(f)] wherein the fastening tongues have both circumferential and axial elasticity relative to the annular body of the toothed ring to allow both axial and circumferential relative movement between the hub and the shaft of the axial spline connection; [ (g)] wherein the teeth of the toothed ring mesh with one of teeth of the internally toothed hub and teeth of the externally toothed shaft; and [(h)] wherein by rotating the toothed ring against a circumferential force exerted by the fastening tongues a circumferential clamping force is produced on the shaft-hub connection when the axial spline connection is in a connected state, which circumferential clamping force is introduced into the shaft-hub axial spline connection through connection of the teeth of the toothed ring with one of the externally toothed shaft and the internally toothed hub and connection of the fastening tongues with the other of the externally toothed shaft and the internally toothed hub to eliminate tooth contact noises that develop as a result of play in the shaft-hub connection of the axial spline connection. THE REJECTI0N3 Claims 1-7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over Carny et al. (US 4,588,062, iss. May 13, 1986) ("Caray") in view ofNakane et al. (US 5,797,474, iss. Aug. 25, 1998) ("Nakane"). 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Caray. Ans. 7. 3 Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellant's contention that the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 of the independent claims is in error because the Examiner has not adequately shown how Caray and N akane are combined to teach "a first end spaced circumferentially from the second end and spaced axially from the annular body, the first end adapted to be connected to one of the toothed components that form the axial spline connection," as recited in limitation ( d) of claim 1 and similarly incorporated in claim 4. See Appeal Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Caray teaches a fastening tongue (deformable arm 32) having a first end (end near radially inwardly enlarged portion 4 7). See Final Act. 4; see also Carny Fig. 7. The Examiner acknowledges that"[ w ]hile not expressly, positively, and clearly set forth in the instant claim, Caray does not expressly ( although possibly implicit as noted above) disclose the first end of the fastening tongue being spaced in the axial direction from the annular body." Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner relies on Nakane for teaching "a ring that includes an annular body (e.g. central most annular portion including openings 254-257) and fastening tongues (e.g. 233) having a first end (e.g. end near 232) spaced both circumferentially and axially from the annular body." Id. The Examiner determines one of ordinary skill would have such spacing "in order to prevent interference of the annular body with the fastening tongues during the application of circumferential twists (Col. 6, L 1-3)," and to "compensate for axial misalignment and/ or assembly tolerances." Id. at 6-7. Caray discloses a torsion damping assembly comprising, in relevant part, a resiliently deformable arm with a support member. See Carny 4 Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 Abstract. Resiliently defonnable arm 32 is attached to second coaxial part B by pin 45 and is adapted to rotate around pin 45. Id. at col. 5, 11. 45-50. Ann 32 includes radially inwardly enlarged portion 47 at its free end having aperture 46 in which pin 45 is received. Id. at col. 5, 11. 50-53. Nakane discloses a clutch disc with damper plates (Nakane Abstract) having, in relevant part, a plurality of arc-like cut line or slits formed to cause adjacent structures centrifugally spirally to be "dislocated from each other in the axial direction of the clutch axis" (id. at col. 5, 11. 56-66). The dislocation is "between an inner plate 231 positioned at the inner peripheral side of the damper plate 23 and an outer plate 232 positioned at the peripheral side thereof' (id. at col. 14, 11. 16-19) and "causes a plate 233 positioned intermediate between the inner plate 231 and the outer plate 232 to be inclined by a slight angle a and vertically spiral along the clutch axis (C)" (id. at col. 14, 11. 22-25). Due to dislocation between upper surface and lower surface of the damper plate, there is a little gap in the slit and cut line in the axial direction of the clutch disc. Id. at col. 14, 11. 26-37, Figs. 5(a), 5(b ). "[W]hen the adjacent structures are dislocated radially from each other as a result of circumferential twists applied thereto, the arc-like cut lines or the arc-like slits do not interfere with each other." Id. at col. 5, 1. 67----6, 1. 3. The Examiner combines Nakane's end near plate 232 with Caray's end near portion 47. See Final Act. 6-7. Even were we to agree that Nakane teaches plate 232 spaced circumferentially and axially from the annular body, as the Appellant states, "in the Caray et al. reference each of the individual outer ends (element 47 in Fig. 5) are free, whereas in the Nakane et al. structure the ends of spiral plates 233 are interconnected with one of inner plate 231 and outer plate 232." The Examiner has not adequately 5 Appeal2017-010961 Application 13/845,012 explained how the "end" ofNakane's interconnected plate 232 is combined with Caray' s free end of portion 4 7 such that Caray' s portion 4 7 is spaced axially from the annular body. We do not see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how Nakane's plate end, spaced such so that "the arc-like cut lines or the arc-like slits do not interfere with each other" (Nakane, col. 6, 1. 3), would be combined with Carny's end with aperture 46 through which pin 45 is received, attaching the arm to another part, "in order to prevent interference of the annular body with the fastening tongues during the application of circumferential twists" or to "compensate for axial misalignment and/or assembly tolerances" (Final Act. 7). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 4, and of dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-10, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6