Ex Parte Freemon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2004

09815191 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 25

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ELEHUE KAWIKA FREEMON

____________

Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH and PAWLIKOWSKI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 7-20, which are all the
claims pending in this application.
A copy of each of claims 7 and 20 is set forth below:
7. A snowboard brake assembly [12] for a
snowboard system [10] comprising:
a. support member [140] consisting of a
predetermined height and geometric shape, having a
predetermined number of vertical centered apertures
[144] and furthermore incorporated within its edge a
Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

2
support hinge member [140a] of a predetermined length,
height and inside diameter and
b. furthermore rotating within the support hinge
member [140a] a snowboard brake assembly [12]
consisting of a single irregular angled shaped lever
arm member therefore [90] having a predetermined
number of legs-section of various lengths and
furthermore disclosing a pre-stressed torsion spring
member [190] located about one leg-section and
c. whereby the torsion spring [190] communicating
with the lever arm member [90] providing means of a
mechanical transmission for snowboard braking.

20. The mechanical brake of claim 19 wherein
having the first [90a] and third [90c] legs-sections
parallel and furthermore having the second leg-section
[90b] as a common axis whereas the first [90a] and
third [90c] legs-sections extend into moderately
divergent planes forming a “Oblique U” whereby the
third leg-section [90a] being the highest elevated
upon a flatted plane, and furthermore communicating
with the third leg-section [90c] a fourth leg-section
[90d] angled and perpendicular to the plane of the
second and third leg-section and furthermore parallel
to the first leg-section [90a], and furthermore having
about the second leg-section [90b] the torsion spring
member [190] and hinge member [140a], respectively.

On page 5 of the brief, appellant states that claims 7-20
stand or fall together. Hence, we consider claim 7 in this
appeal, and, additionally, claim 20 (for the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, indefiniteness rejection).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness).
Claims 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Klubitschko in view of Renaud-Goud.

Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

3
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Klubitschko 4,366,968 Jan. 04, 1983
Renaud-Goud 5,551,721 Sep. 03, 1996

OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection

On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that there is
no antecedent basis for “the first [90a] and third [90c] legs-
sections” in lines 1-2 of claim 20, and for the phrase “the
second leg-section [90b]” in line 2 of claim 20.
Upon our review of pages 1-32 of appellant’s brief, we
cannot find any argument rebutting this 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection.
We therefore, pro forma, affirm this rejection.

II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-20
We refer to pages 3-6 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection and we also refer to pages
6-8 of the answer regarding the examiner’s rebuttal to
appellant’s arguments regarding this rejection.
To summarize, the examiner’s position is that Klubitschko
teaches the use of a brake, including a support member 14
(Figure 2) having a predetermined number of vertical centered
apertures (Figure 1, not labeled). Answer, pages 3-4.
The examiner states that within an edge of the support
member 14 is a support hinge member 16, shown in Figure 2. This
corresponds with appellant’s component a of claim 7. The
examiner states that rotating within the support hinge member 16
Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

4
is a brake assembly consisting of a single irregular angled
shaped lever arm member 17-20 (shown in Figure 1). This aspect
of the teachings of Klubitschko relates to component b of
appellant’s claim 7, except for the claimed “pre-stressed
torsion spring member [190] located about one leg-section.” The
examiner relies upon Renaud-Goud for teaching a brake, for a
vehicle sliding on snow, comprising a binding assembly
consisting of several components which include a pre-stressed
torsion spring member 35, depicted in Figure 1 of Renaud-Goud.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have modified the lever arm member (17-20 of Figure 1) of
Klubitschko to comprise a torsion spring, as shown in Renaud-
Goud, to provide elastic return to the operative braking
position, as taught by Renaud-Goud, in column 4, lines 24-26.
In summary, the examiner’s position is that it would have been
obvious to modify the lever arm member 17-20 of Klubitschko such
that it includes a torsion spring.
On pages 12-23 of the brief, appellant describes his
snowboard brake assembly, but, as pointed out by the examiner on
page 7 of the answer, the features that appellant describes are
not recited in the instant claims. For example, on page 12 of
the brief, appellant argues that the support member [140] is
non-moving, yet this aspect is not recited in claim 7. As
another example, on page 14 of the brief, appellant argues that
his invention has a single cylinder evenly shaped cavity on one
side. These aspects of appellant’s invention are not recited in
the claims (see claim 7, reproduced below, for emphasis):
7. A snowboard brake assembly [12] for a
snowboard system [10] comprising:
a. support member [140] consisting of a
predetermined height and geometric shape, having a
predetermined number of vertical centered apertures
Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

5
[144] and furthermore incorporated within its edge a
support hinge member [140a] of a predetermined length,
height and inside diameter and
b. furthermore rotating within the support hinge
member [140a] a snowboard brake assembly [12]
consisting of a single irregular angled shaped lever
arm member therefore [90] having a predetermined
number of legs-section of various lengths and
furthermore disclosing a pre-stressed torsion spring
member [190] located about one leg-section and
c. whereby the torsion spring [190] communicating
with the lever arm member [90] providing means of a
mechanical transmission for snowboard braking.

As discussed, supra, the examiner has explained (and we
agree) how Klubitschko suggests components a, b, and c, as
recited in claim 7. With regard to the claimed torsion spring,
the examiner’s position is set forth on pages 3-5 of the answer.
Beginning on page 24 of the brief, appellant argues that
the applied art does not teach or suggest his claimed torsion
spring. Again, the limitations that appellant argues are not
claimed. Claim 7 requires “a pre-stressed torsion spring member
[190] located about one leg-section”. This spring communicates
with lever arm [90]. We note that during patent examination,
the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
320, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, on page 24 of the brief, while
appellant argues (1) certain structural limitations (such as
shape) regarding the torsion spring and (2) how the spring is
positioned relative to other components (such as legs/arms), the
aforementioned claim language does not require such limitations.
We therefore agree with the examiner’s explanation of pre-
stressed torsion spring 35 of Renaud-Goud as set forth on page 4
of the answer, and the examiner’s rebuttal made on page 7 of the
Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

6
answer, wherein the examiner correctly states that appellant
argues certain features which are not claimed.
We additionally point out that, as admitted by appellant on
page 16 of the brief, Klubitschko teaches the use of a coil
bending spring that influences pedal 14 (pedal 14 is depicted in
Figures 1 and 2). See column 2, lines 46-55 of Klubitschko. As
discussed above, appellant’s claim 7 does not recite a
particular design of the spring. Claim 7 recites that the
spring member is located about one leg-section and that it
communicates with the lever arm member. Although appellant
asserts that the design of the torsion spring of Klubitschko is
unknown, column 2, lines 46-55 of Klubitschko teaches that the
use of “a coiled bending spring” influences pedal 14. Appellant
does not present specific arguments that such a teaching does
not suggest “a pre-stressed torsion spring member [190] located
about one leg-section”. Although the examiner discusses Renaud-
Goud (discussed above) regarding the teaching of a torsion
spring, it is noteworthy to point out appellant’s admission of
the use of a coil bending spring found in Klubitschko.
With regard to the other arguments presented by appellant,
we refer to the examiner’s rebuttal as set forth on pages 6-8 of
the answer. Here, the examiner correctly points out that the
intended use is not a distinguishing characteristic of the claim
rather the structural aspects are of import. We note that it
has been held that a process of use limitation, as recited in
the preamble of the claim, has no significance in a product
claim. Cf. In re Wiggins, 397 F.2d 356, 359 n.4, 158 USPQ 199,
201-202 n. 4 (CCPA 1968).
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.

Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

7
III. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JEFFREY T. SMITH ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/sld
Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191

8
ELEHUE K. FREEMON
P.O. BOX 145
BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315