Ex Parte Kramer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2008

10715051 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2008)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DENNIS A. KRAMER
____________________

Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: September 25, 2008
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING and STEVEN
D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1-3, 7-14, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appellant invented a force sensor for a vehicle brake (Specification
1).
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A disc brake comprising:
an actuation mechanism being movable to apply a
braking force;
a pair of pistons movable upon receipt of said braking
force to force a brake pad into contact with an item to be
braked;
an adjustment mechanism for adjusting a location of said
pair of pistons to take up clearance with wear in said brake pad;
and
a force sensor for sensing a reaction force to said braking
force, and identifying a point of force application increase
indicative of initial contact of said brake pad with the item to be
braked, said force sensor sending a signal to an electric control
for said adjustment mechanism.

The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Carre.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carre in view of Oreper.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ward in view of Carre.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ward in view of Carre and Oreper.
2
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carre US 4,784,244 Nov. 15, 1988
Oreper US 6,272,936 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Ward US 6,397,977 B1 Jun. 04, 2002

Appellant contends that the recitations in claim 21 would have been
understood and clear when read by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant contends that Carre does not disclose a force sensor that
identifies a point of force application increase indicative of initial contact
and sends a signal to the electric control for an adjustment mechanism.

ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in holding that the phrases “a braking force”, “a clearance,” and
“components of the disc brake” recited in claim 21 are unclear and therefore
indefinite.
The second issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Carre discloses a force sensor that indentifies
a point of force application increase indicative of initial contact and sends a
signal to the electric control for an adjustment mechanism.
3
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Specification discloses a disc brake 20 which includes
brake pads 24 and 26 which are used to actuate braking by bringing the
brake pads 24, 26 in contact with a rotor 22 [0017]. As shaft 40 is turned to
rotate by an actuator, eccentric ends 42 and 44 drive the bearings 36 and 38.
The bearings force tappet gears 28, 29 and pistons 34 downward, bringing
brake pads 24, 26 in contact with rotor 22 and thereby exerting a braking
force on rotor 22 [0020]. The position of the pistons 34 must be adjusted to
account for the wear of the brake pads [0018]. The wear on the brake pads
24, 26 affects the distance or air gap between the brake pads 24, 26 and the
rotor 22. A force sensor 46 measures the reaction force transmitted from
bearing 36, 38 to cup 44 and identifies a point of force application indicative
of initial contact of the brake pad and the rotor [0022-0023]. The sensor 46
sends a signal indicative of this point to a controller 31. A sensor 71
measures the rotational position of a shaft 40 at two times, once before the
force indicates initial contact and one after initial contact and the difference
between the two shaft rotational positions is related to the gap of the pads
relative to the rotor [0029]. Based on this calculation a clearance is adjusted
[0029].
Carre discloses a brake which includes a force sensor 23 which
detects, by reaction, the force exerted by a piston 5 on friction members 4
(col. 3, ll. 13 to 20). The electrical signal from the force sensor 23 is sent to
an electronic control unit 24. The electronic control unit 24 also receives
signals from a position or force sensor 25 associated with a brake pedal 26
and provides a control signal for an electric motor 8 to actuate the brake (col.
4
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3, ll. 23 to 27). Carre also discloses that there is an adjustment mechanism
termed a play compensation system 28 which directly actuates the adjacent
friction member 4a and which is axially adjustable (col. 3, ll. 28 to 41).
Carre does not disclose that the electronic control unit 24 is connected to the
play compensation system. Carre does not disclose that the force sensor 23
identifies a point of force application increase indicative of initial contact of
the brake pad with the item braked or sending a signal to an electric control
for an adjustment mechanism.
Ward discloses a vehicle brake. However, Ward does not disclose
that a force sensor identifies a point of force application increase indicative
of initial contact of the brake pad with the item braked or sending a signal to
an electric control for an adjustment mechanism.
Oreper discloses a force sensor. However, Oreper does not disclose
that the force sensor identifies a point of force application increase indicative
of initial contact of the brake pad with the item braked or sending a signal to
an electric control for an adjustment mechanism.

ANALYSIS
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We initially note that the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to set out and circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1015(CCPA 1977). In making this determination, the
definiteness of the language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in
a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
22
23
24
25
5
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.

The Examiner's focus during examination of claims for compliance
with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is whether the claims meet the threshold requirements of clarity and
precision, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are
available. Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of
terms is permitted even though the claim language is not as precise as the
examiner might desire. If the scope of the invention sought to be patented
cannot be determined from the language of the claims with a reasonable
degree of certainty, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is appropriate.
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the Examiner of the
claims on appeal.
We do not agree with the Examiner that the recitation of “braking
force” in claim 21 is unclear. In our view, when claim 21 is read in light of
the Specification, it is clear that the braking force is the force used to bring
the pads 24, 26 in contact with the rotor 22. In regard to the recitation of a
gap between components of the disc brake, we agree with the Examiner that
the recitation of “components of the disc brake” can be read as including the
brake pads, the rotor, and other components of the brake system. The
Examiner’s position that this renders the claim unclear is not well taken.
First, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In 25
6
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 1
689, 693 (CCPA 1971); and In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 2
1970). In any event, in light of the disclosure in paragraph [0029] of
Appellant’s Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
appreciate that the components referred to as having a gap are the brake
pads. In addition, in our view it is also clear from paragraph [0029] that the
clearance recited in claim 21 is the amount of adjustment made after the gap
is identified.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) because Carre does not disclose a force sensor that
indentifies a point of force application increase indicative of initial contact
of the brake pad with the item to be braked or that a signal from the force
sensor is sent to the electric control for the adjustment mechanism. In this
regard, while we agree with the Examiner that force sensor 23 senses the
reaction force to a braking force, there is no disclosure that the sensor
identifies a point of force application increase indicative of an initial contact
of the pads to the rotor or that the force sensor or the electric control for that
matter is any way I connected to the adjustment mechanism. Therefore, we
will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 or claim 21
dependent thereon.
We will not sustain the remaining Examiner’s rejections made
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 10 recites the same language regarding
7
Appeal 2008-3623
Application 10/715,051

1
2
the force sensor as claim 1 and Carre does not suggest a force sensor as
recited in claim 1. Ward and Oreper do not cure the deficiencies of Carre.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
REVERSED

LV

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009

8