Ex Parte Khan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201412049514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ADIL KHAN, DANIEL A. VILLAR, DANIEL GABOR, and PETER F. WORREL ____________________ Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Adil Khan et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayn (DE 10 2007 005 459 A1, published Nov. 29, 2007),1 Apsey (US 7,241,095 B2, issued July 10, 2007), 1 The electronic record of the present application contains an English- language translation of Hayn (hereinafter “Hayn Transl.”), with an entry date of December 27, 2010. Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 2 and Drew (US 6,415,682 B1, issued July 9, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A brake system for a hybrid vehicle, comprising: a master cylinder connected with a plurality of wheel cylinders; a brake pedal mounted upon a pivoted brake pedal arm adapted for mounting within a passenger compartment of a vehicle, with said brake pedal am having a non-circular bore extending therethrough; and a compliance device extending between said brake pedal arm and said master cylinder, with said compliance device comprising: a pushrod having a first end attached to said master cylinder, and a second, free end; a clevis attached to the second end of said pushrod, with said clevis having a base engaging said pushrod, and opposing connecting members integral with said base, with said opposing connecting members each having a linear aperture extending generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of said pushrod; and a composite drive pin extending through said linear apertures and through said bore formed in said brake pedal arm, in a direction generally perpendicular to said pushrod, with said composite drive pin comprising: a metallic core; a resin sheath applied to said core, with said resin sheath having a generally cylindrical outer surface adapted to engage with the bore formed in said brake pedal arm, as well as with said linear apertures, and with said resin sheath having a Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 3 plurality of axial location abutments comprising at least one abutment being radially displaceable, so as to permit the drive pin to be assembled to said clevis and said brake pedal arm, while being retained thereafter in a predetermined axial position, and with said resin sheath having an anti- rotation cam slidingly fit into said non-circular bore extending through said brake pedal arm. OPINION Appellants do not present any separate arguments for dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 10–13 apart from independent claim 1. Br. 6. Thus, we select claim 1 to decide this appeal, with the dependent claims standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner determined that Hayn and Apsey render obvious the subject matter of claim 1, with the exception that Hayn as modified in view of Apsey “does not expressly disclose the brake pedal arm having a non- circular bore and said resin sheath having an anti-rotation cam slidingly fit into said non-circular bore extending through said brake pedal arm.” Ans. 4–6. Appellants do not contest this determination. See Br. 5 (stating that “all is apparently well until Drew is applied”). The Examiner found: Drew teaches the use of a brake pedal arm (12) having a non-circular bore (70) and a sheath (16) having an anti-rotation cam (90) slidingly fit into said non-circular bore extending through said brake pedal arm (col. 3[,] 11. 15–28) for the purpose of adequately securing a drive pin (38) to the pedal and promoting the ease of assembly (col. 1[,] 11. 5–7, 13–18). Ans. 6–7. Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 4 The Examiner then determined that it would have been obvious to provide Hayn’s brake pedal arm with a non-circular bore and to provide the sheath of Hayn’s drive pin with an anti-rotation cam slidingly fitted into the non-circular bore, as taught by Drew, “for the purpose of adequately securing the drive pin to the pedal arm and promoting the ease of assembly.” Id. at 7. Appellants argue that Drew does not teach a brake pedal arm. Br. 5. Appellant is not correct. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Drew discloses a pedal assembly including “a pedal or pedal structure 12, such as a brake pedal or clutch pedal.” Drew, col. 2, ll. 33–34 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that Drew’s arrangement locks the pedal arm to its cross shaft, thereby preventing relative rotation between the pedal arm and cross shaft and that “Appellants, on the other hand, use their composite drive pin to pivotably connect pushrod 32 to pedal arm 18,” such that their composite drive pin does not prevent relative rotation between the pushrod and the pedal arm. Br. 6. According to Appellants, “if such rotation were inhibited” in their system, “actuation of the brake would be prevented.” Id. Appellants add that “[i]f Drew’s device were used to attach a brake pushrod to a pedal arm, as proposed by the Examiner, the combination could not work.” Id. Appellants’ arguments point to differences between Drew’s system and that of Appellants, but do not identify error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify Hayn in view of Drew by providing a non-circular bore in the brake pedal arm and an anti- rotation cam on the drive pin slidingly fitted into the non-circular bore, to adequately secure the drive pin to the pedal arm and facilitate assembly. Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 5 The Examiner’s rejection proposes to modify Hayn’s system, not Appellants’ system. Moreover, Appellants’ arguments, even if construed as being directed to the modification of Hayn’s system, rather than to Appellants’ system, do not address the modification proposed by the Examiner. The connection that the Examiner proposes to modify is the connection between the drive pin (bolt 32) and pedal arm 4 of Hayn, not the connection between the drive pin (bolt 32) and the clevis. As explained by the Examiner in the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the Examiner’s Answer, a secure, non-rotatable connection between Hayn’s drive pin (bolt 32) and brake pedal arm 4 would not prevent relative pivoting between the brake pedal arm and pushrod (piston rod head 81). Hayn’s “double-armed clevis” arrangement, like Appellants’ clevis 36, would still permit pivotal movement of the pedal arm relative to the pushrod. See Hayn Transl., para. 25 (describing a “double- armed clevis” with linear apertures 31 connected to piston rod head 81); Hayn, Figs. 8a–8c (depicting the clevis with linear apertures 31 permitting movement therewithin of drive pin (bolt 32) ); cf. Hayn Transl., para. 19 (describing the lost motion “in the mode ‘Brake by wire’” afforded by the longitudinal opening in the piston rod head in the Figure 1 embodiment); Hayn, Fig. 1 (depicting the system with piston rod head 8). For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–13 as unpatentable over Hayn, Apsey, and Drew. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–13 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-007620 Application 12/049,514 6 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 Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation