Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12525731 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/525,731 12/07/2009 David Callum Johnson
26360 7590 09/21/2016
Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA
First National Tower, Suite 400
106 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308-1412
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.
MAL.P.2 1857
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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 DAVID CALLUM JOHNSON
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "Meggitt Aircraft
Braking Systems." (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending in the application; the Examiner indicates
that dependent claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
(Final Action 1, 4.)
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates generally to braking, for example
braking systems for vehicles." (Spec. 1, lines 7-8.)
Illustrative Claim3
1. A method of operating a brake apparatus having a plurality of
brake elements with a combined thickness of Y, at least one of
the brake elements having a wear portion for tribological
interaction with a wear portion of an adjacent element and being
formed in two separable parts having thicknesses Ai and A2,
each of said separable parts comprising a separate and distinct
core having a said wear portion, the method comprising
operating an actuator at an actuation extension length less than a
maximum actuation extension length to cause the wear portions
of said brake elements to tribologically engage and thereby wear,
such that as the elements wear to a combined thickness of less
than Y the extension length of the actuator is increased; inserting
a spacer between said cores of said at least one brake element to
cause the wear portions to be tribologically engageable at an
actuation extension length less than said increased actuation
extension length.
Pigford
Alev
Johnson
References
us 4,982,818
us 5,099,960
US 2005/0011706 Al
Rejections
Jan. 8, 1991
Mar. 31, 1992
Jan.20,2005
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Alev and Pigford. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alev, Pigford, and Johnson. (Id. at 3.)
3 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 13-16 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 9-18) depending
therefrom. (Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to a
"method of operating a brake apparatus" and independent claim 8 is directed
to a "brake apparatus." (Id.) The claimed methods involve, and the claimed
apparatus comprises, a "brake element." (Id.)
In independent claim 1, the brake element is "formed in two separable
parts" each comprising "a separate and distinct core having [a] wear
portion." (Claims App.) In independent claim 8, the brake element
comprises "two releasably separable cores, each having [a] wear surface[]
thereon." (Id.) In independent claim 20, the brake element is "formed in
two separable parts each having a core and a wear surface." (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Alev teaches such a two-part brake element.
(See Final Action 2.) Alev discloses a brake element having discs lOA and
lOB clamped together by fastening means 22. (Alev, col. 4, lines 64---65,
Figs. 2, 3.) The brake discs 1 OA and 1 OB "have planar brake wear surfaces
16A and 16B respectively which are the inboard-facing wear surfaces of the
discs and planar brake wear surfaces 18A and 18B respectively which are
the outboard-facing brake wear surfaces of the discs." (Id. at col. 4, lines
36--41, Figs. 2, 3.) Alev teaches that brake discs lOA and lOB can be
separated from each other. (See id. at col. 5, lines 32--42.)
Independent claim 1 recites a step wherein the wear portions of the
brake element "wear." (Claims App.) Independent claim 8 recites that the
apparatus is operable in a state wherein the wear surfaces of the brake
element "are being worn." (Id.) Independent claim 20 recites a step wherein
3
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
the wear surfaces of the brake element are engaged to "cause wear thereof"
(Id.)
The Examiner finds Alev discloses such wearing of wear surfaces.
(See Final Action 2.) In Alev, the braking element goes "through a first
period of braking service" wherein braking wear surfaces 16A and 18B are
"worn to the approximate extent of composite densification depth" and the
braking element requires "refurbishment." (Alev, col. 5, lines 19-21,
Fig. 4.)
Independent claim 1 recites the step of "inserting a spacer between"
the cores of the brake element. (Claims App.) Independent claim 8 recites a
second operational state wherein "a spacer [is] inserted between the
releasably two separable cores." (Id.) Independent claim 20 recites the step
of "separating the parts and placing a spacer between and in contact with the
cores thereof." (Id.)
The Examiner finds that "Alev fails to teach adding in a spacer
between the two parts, so as to achieve the prior width of the original
element (consisting of the two original parts)." (Final Action 2.) In Alev,
refurbishment is "accomplished by declamping the fastening means 22" and
"grinding of the worn braking wear surfaces 16A and 18B." (Alev, col. 5,
lines 32-35, Fig 5.) The now thinner (by virtue of wear and grinding) discs
lOA and lOB are situated so that surfaces 16A and 18B are face-to-face and
they are clamped together with a new fastening means 26 that fits the thinner
discs. (Id. at col. 5, lines 36-48, Fig. 6.) As indicated above, the Examiner
acknowledges that Alev does not show or suggest placing a spacer between
worn brake parts lOA and lOB when they are clamped together in their new
orientation.
4
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
However, the Examiner also finds that "Pigford teaches the addition
of a spacer between two refurbished wear portions of a brake element so as
to achieve a width substantially the same as the original brake element."
(Final Action 2, reference numerals omitted.) The Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious to provide Alev' s worn brake parts 1 OA and 1 OB
"with a spacer as taught by Pigford" (id.) as "the spacer would simply take
up any wear and resurfacing thickness lost as shown in [Alev's Figure 5]"
(Answer 2). In other words, the spacer would compensate for the thickness
lost through wear and grinding so that the refurbished brake element was no
longer thinner than the original brake element.
The Examiner explains that the proposed combination has two
advantages. The first advantage is that it would return Alev's brake element
to its original thickness thereby "maintaining a brake disc of sufficient
thickness so as to absorb the heat generated during a braking operation."
(Final Action 4.) "The second advantage is the need to only stock one size
of fastening bracket." (Id. at 4--5.)
The Appellant argues that Pigford' s member 22 is a core member
"integral to the disc" and not a "spacer." (Appeal Br. 8.) According to the
Appellant, "Pigford teaches the remanufacturing of brake discs, not the
interpositioning of a spacer between existing discs." (Id.) We are not
persuaded by these arguments because neither the claims nor the
Specification call for the spacer to be "non-integral" to the cores between
which it is inserted. Dependent claim 3, for example, specifies a step of
"securing the spacer to one or both of the cores" (Claims App.) and the
Specification conveys that "[t]he spacer may be coupled to one or both of
the two parts" (Spec. 4, lines 12-13).
5
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
Moreover, regardless of what Pigford's member 22 is called, we agree
with the Examiner that this reference teaches the addition of a member "so
as to achieve a width substantially the same as the original brake element."
(Final Action 2.) As noted by the Appellant, Pigford discloses "tak[ing] up
the thickness lost by the wear of the brake elements" and returning "to the
specifications of the original discs." (Appeal Br. 8.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination of
the prior art would "defeat Alev's desires" in that "Pigford does exactly
what Alev desires to avoid." (Appeal Br. 8-9.) We are not persuaded by
this argument because it appears to be premised upon a bodily incorporation
of Pigford's refurbishing steps into Alev's method. The Examiner's
rejection does not involve shipping spent cores to the brake manufacturer,
cutting spent cores in half, bonding the spent-core halves to a new core,
and/or forwarding them back to the airlines for use. Instead, the Examiner's
rejection involves insertion of a spacer when Alev's refurbished discs lOA
and lOB are assembled back together in their new orientation.
The Appellant argues that "the approach suggested by the Examiner
would increase inventory, requiring the maintenance of multiple spacers for
various aircraft and their brakes." (Appeal Br. 9.) According to the
Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art, or at least Alev, would not
consider the need "to stock only one size of fastening bracket" to be
"something of value." (Id.) We are not persuaded by this argument because
it does not address the Examiner's finding that the proposed modification
would also provide the advantage of "maintaining a brake disc of sufficient
thickness so as to absorb the heat generated during a braking operation."
(Final Action 4.) The Appellant does not adequately address why this
6
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
advantage would not outweigh the alleged inconvenience of an increased
inventory of spacers.
The Appellant argues that one would not grind down discs for the
purpose of stocking only one size of fastening bracket. (Appeal Br. 9-10.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because Alev teaches a grinding step
even when plural bracket sizes are needed. Insofar as the Appellant is
implicating that the Examiner's rejection requires an additional grinding step
to accommodate a single bracket size, we disagree, as this accommodation is
provided by the insertion of the spacing element.
With particular reference to independent claim 1, the Appellant argues
that "Pigford only teaches cores and wear surfaces, with the cores ultimately
becoming wear surfaces after they are split and machined and adhered to a
new core-not a spacer." (Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because it does not point, with particularity, to flaws in the
Examiner's finding that Pigford teaches the addition of a member "between
two refurbished wear portions of a brake element so as to achieve a width
substantially the same as the original brake element." (Final Action 2.)
While in Pigford this spacer may also serve as a "core," the Appellant does
not adequately address why, in the Examiner's combination of the prior art,
such an element could not serve as a spacer situated between cores.
With particular reference to independent claim 8, the Appellant argues
that, in the claimed invention, "cores remain cores, wear surfaces remain
wear surfaces (although reduced in size), and spacers remain spacers
throughout the life of the assembly." (Appeal Br. 10.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, in Alev, the cores (i.e., the non-wear-
surface portions of the discs lOA and lOB) also remain cores and the wear
7
Appeal2014-006959
Application 12/525,731
surfaces (surfaces 16A, 16B, 18A, 18B) also remain wear surfaces
throughout the life of the assembly. As for the spacer, in the Examiner's
proposed modification of Alev' s method, the spacer inserted between worn
brake parts 1 OA and 1 OB would seemingly remain a spacer for the life of the
assembly.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments that
the Examiner errs in determining that the methods and apparatus recited in
the independent claims would have been obvious over Alev and Pigford.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Appellant "does not separately argue the allowability of the
dependent claims." (Appeal Br. 7.) Thus, we likewise sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 9-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-18, and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8