Ex Parte Beri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

10595350 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/595,350 04/12/2006 Michael Beri CMB0101PUSA 8073
22045 7590 12/17/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2013 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 MICHAEL BERI
____________________

Appeal 2011-007146
Application 10/595,350
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007146
Application 10/595,350

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 65, 70-83, and 86-88. Claims 1-16 and 27-40 have
been cancelled, and claims 17-26, 41-64, 66-69, 84, and 85 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention “relates to drum brake shoes and brake lining
blocks.” Spec. 1, ll. 9-10. Claims 65 and 78 are the independent claims on
appeal. Claim 65, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
65. A brake shoe assembly comprising:
a brake shoe having an outer radial surface,
a plurality of receptacles passing through the outer
radial surface, and a plurality of bore holes in the
outer radial surface for preassembled fasteners;
and
a brake plate having a cylindrical backing
plate and a frictional brake lining, wherein the
cylindrical backing plate includes tangs that are
partially severed from the backing plate to mate
with respective receptacles for resisting movement
of the brake plate relative to the outer radial
surface of the brake shoe without the tangs passing
completely through the brake shoe, and a plurality
of preassembled fasteners spaced from the tangs
and extending away from the brake lining and
toward the brake shoe to facilitate alignment of the
tangs with the receptacles, and wherein the
frictional brake lining is molded to the backing
plate to form a continuous molded layer that
covers each of the preassembled fasteners, the
Appeal 2011-007146
Application 10/595,350

3
brake lining being free of holes extending
completely through the continuous molded layer;
wherein the tangs and the receptacles
supplement the preassembled fasteners in securing
the brake plate to the brake shoe and particularly
resist shear forces between the brake plate and
brake shoe.
Claim 78 is also directed to a brake shoe assembly and is similar in
scope to claim 65, but recites “projections” instead of “tangs.”
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Newell
Sallenave
US 2,879,866
US 3,996,717
Mar. 31, 1959
Dec. 14, 1976

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Claims 65, 70-73, 75, 78, 79-82, and 86 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Newell.
Claims 74 and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Newell.
Claims 76 and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Newell.
Claims 77 and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Newell and Sallenave.
Appeal 2011-007146
Application 10/595,350

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 65 calls for a backing plate having tangs and “a plurality of
preassembled fasteners spaced from the tangs.” Claim 78 calls for a backing
plate having projections and “a plurality of preassembled fasteners spaced
from the projections.” The Examiner finds that Newell discloses a brake
shoe assembly in which protuberances 2 correspond to the claimed tangs
(and projections) and rivets 17 correspond to the claimed preassembled
fasteners. Ans. 3-4. Regarding the requirement that the fasteners are spaced
from the tangs/projections, the Examiner contends that the claims do not
require “the fasteners [to be] spaced from each of the tangs” and “as broadly
recited, the fasteners located on the left side of [Newell’s] assembly are
spaced from the tangs located on the right side of the assembly.” Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that “Newell does not anticipate the concept of
providing preassembled fasteners 30 that are spaced from . . . the
tangs/projections 46.” Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. Newell discloses a brake shoe assembly
comprising a rivet plate 1 supporting a brake shoe 21 and attached to a
backing plate 23. Newell, col. 3, ll. 58-65; col. 4, ll. 34-41; fig. 6. The rivet
plate 1 has a plurality of protuberances 2, and each protuberance 2 receives a
rivet 17. Id. at col. 2, l. 57-col. 3, l. 6; col. 3, ll. 44-50; figs. 1, 5. As such,
each rivet 17 extends through a respective one of the protuberances 2.
Accordingly, Newell does not disclose a plurality of fasteners (i.e., rivets 17)
that are spaced from the tangs or projections (i.e., protuberances 2).
While it is true that each rivet 17 of Newell is spaced from the
protuberances 2 other than the protuberance into which it is inserted, the
Examiner’s reliance on this fact in finding that Newell discloses fasteners
Appeal 2011-007146
Application 10/595,350

5
spaced from the tangs/projections is based on an unreasonably broad
interpretation of the claim language. The claims require that a plurality of
preassembled fasteners be spaced from the tangs/projections. This language,
particularly when considered in light of the Specification, means that all of
the fasteners are spaced from all of the tangs/projections, not just some of
the tangs/projections.
We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claims 65, 70-73, 75,
78, 79-82, and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Newell.
Because the rejections of claims 74, 76, 77, 83, 87, and 88 all rely on the
erroneous finding that Newell discloses the fasteners as claimed, we also do
not sustain these rejections.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 65, 70-83,
and 86-88.

REVERSED

rvb