Ex Parte Kramer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2006

10459052 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2006)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNIS A. KRAMER, FREDERICK A. JELLEY, JOSEPH A. KAY, JAMES R.
BRICHTA, DENNIS G. O'REILLY, CHRISTOPHER S. KEENEY and JAEHO KWAK
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before OWENS, CRAWFORD, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 6, 8,
9 and 13 to 17.
The appellants' invention relates to a brake system for a motor vehicle
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellants' brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 2
Testardi 5,067,778 Nov. 26, 1991
Schenk et al. (Schenk) 5,090,518 Feb. 25, 1992
Suzuki 5,957,246 Sep. 28, 1999

Akuta JP 03061728 Mar. 18, 1991

The rejections

Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schenk in view of Suzuki.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Schenk and Suzuki further in view of Akuta.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schenk, Suzuki and further in view of Testardi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 30, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 29, 2005) and reply brief (filed August 26, 2005)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 3
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner‘s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schenk in view of Suzuki. The
examiner finds that Schenk describes the invention as claimed except that Schenk does
not describe a brake pad wear compensation and specifically the use of a position
sensor for sensing the position of the brake pad relative to the braking surface. The
examiner relies on Suzuki for teaching a brake system that utilizes a position sensor
that provides information to a controller when adjusting the brake pad position due to
excessive pad wear. The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
provided the brake system of Schenk et al. with a position sensor for
sensing a worn position of the brake pad relative to the braking surface as
taught by Suzuki, thus allowing for compensation due to pad wear
resulting in improved safety and operation of the vehicle [answer at pages
3 to 4].

Appellants argue that Suzuki does not disclose a control unit that evaluates
whether the position sensed by the position sensor will allow the first brake pad to apply
a braking force to a first side of said braking surface when the energy receptive material
is expanded.
We agree with the examiner that Suzuki describes a brake system utilizing a

position sensor that provides information to a controller when adjusting the brake pad
position due to excessive pad wear. The pad clearance taught by Suzuki is the position
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 4
of the brake pad relative to the braking surface. The controller evaluates the
effectiveness of the brake from a first position, and moves the brake to a second
position if necessary to effect proper brake actuation. However, we agree with the
appellants that Suzuki does not describe a control unit that instructs a drive unit to move
an energy receptive material to a second position if it is sensed that the brake pad will
not apply a braking force when the energy receptive material is expanded. Suzuki does
not describe anything about evaluating whether the braking force to a brake surface will
allow the brake pad to apply a braking force when an energy receptive material is
expanded.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claim 1 and claims 2 and 4 dependent thereon.
Claim 8 recites selectively driving a drive unit to move the position of a brake pad
if it is sensed that the brake pad will not apply a brake force to the braking surface when
the energy receptive material is expanded. As such, claim 8 requires determining if the
brake force will apply a braking force to the brake surface when the energy receptive
material is expanded. As Suzuki does not describe determining whether a brake pad
will apply a braking force when the energy receptive material is expanded, we will not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 8. We will also not sustain the rejection as
it is directed to claims 9, 13 and 15 as these claims are dependent on claim 8.
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 5
The remaining rejections rely on the combination of the teachings of Schenk and
Suzuki to suggest evaluating whether a brake pad will apply a braking force to a brake
surface when an energy receptive material is expanded. Therefore, we will not sustain
these rejections.
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0168
Application No. 10/459,052

Παγε 7
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.400 WEST MAPLE ROADSUITE
350BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009

MEC/jrg
Comment [jvn1]: Type address