10106794 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

Ex Parte Marui

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 22, 2010

10106794 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SHINJI MARUI ____________ Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: February 22, 2010 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and ROBERT E. NAPPI and LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Shinji Marui (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of January 11, 2008 in reissue application 10/106,794. The reissue application seeks to reissue U.S. Patent 6,216,558, issued April 17, 2001, based on Application 08/323,500, filed October 14, 1994, which is a continuation of Application 08/044,837, filed April 8, 1993, now abandoned. The reissue application contains claims 1-40, 43, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 65-74, and 77. The Examiner has rejected claims 40, 43, 55, 58, 65, 67-71, 73, 74, and 77, which are all of the claims on appeal. Claims 51, 52, 57, 66, and 72 have been withdrawn, and claims 1-39 are indicated as being allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a bicycle pedal that incorporates mechanisms to engage a binding plate on the bottom of a rider’s shoe (Spec. 1:9-13). Independent reissue claims 40, 55, 65, and 71 on appeal read as shown in the attached Appendix. THE REJECTION Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of reissue claims 40, 43, 55, 58, 65, 67-71, 73, 74, and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 3 ISSUE The Examiner determined that because each independent reissue claim 40, 55, 65, and 71 is as broad as or broader in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars these claims. Ans. 11. Appellant argues that independent reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 each recites a helical spring limitation which was the “key limitation” of original patent claim 2, and thus the Examiner erred in the recapture analysis by not comparing reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 to patent claim 2. App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues that independent reissue claim 55 does not recapture surrendered subject matter because it includes the “key limitation” that the engaging members and the clamping members are coupled to rotate together in opposite angular directions in response to the insertion of the cleat. App. Br. 14. The issue presented by this appeal is: Do reissue claims 40, 43, 55, 58, 65, 67-71, 73, 74, and 77 impermissibly recapture surrendered subject matter? FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Prosecution history of the original parent application 1. The patent sought to be reissued is based on Application 08/323,500, filed October 14, 1994 (the “original child application”), which Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 4 is a continuation of Application 08/044,837, filed April 8, 1993 (the “original parent application”). 2. As filed, the original parent application contained claims 1-40, including original application claims 1 and 2 which are reproduced below. 1. A bicycle pedal adapted for rotatable mounting to a bicycle pedal shaft and adapted to engage a binding plate on a rider’s shoe, comprising: binding plate engaging means for engaging a binding plate at one of first and second positions, said binding plate engaging means having a generally cylindrical opening to receive the pedal shaft and having first and second plate engaging members configured on opposite sides of said opening; binding plate clamping means for cooperating with said binding plate engaging means to engage said binding plate, said binding plate clamping means having first and second plate clamping members configured at said first and second positions, respectively spaced apart from, and movable relative to, said first and second plate engaging members; and biasing means for biasing said plate clamping members and said engaging members. 2. A bicycle pedal as set out in claim 1, wherein said biasing means comprises a helical spring configured so as to receive the pedal shaft therethrough. 3. The Examiner entered a non-final office action rejecting claims 1-17, 22-28, 32, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, 14-17, 22-28, 32, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by published European patent Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 5 application 0 485 956 A1 to Nagano. Non-Final Office Action, mailed October 15, 1993, at 4-6. 4. The Examiner indicated that claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1. Non-Final Office Action 7. 5. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, Applicant amended claim 2 to rewrite it in independent form to include all of the limitations of base claim 1, including an amendment to base claim 1 to overcome the section 112, second paragraph rejection. Response to Non-Final Office Action, dated January 18, 1994, at 5, 13. 6. Applicant also amended claim 1 to overcome the indefiniteness rejection and to overcome the prior art rejection over Nagano. Response to Non-Final Office Action 4, 8, 10. 7. The Examiner then entered a Final Office action rejecting claims 1-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, 20-28, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over, Japanese Abstract 03- 34987 to Ogino (“Ogino”). Final Office Action, mailed April 14, 1994, at 4- 11. 8. The Examiner again indicated that claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Final Office Action 10. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 6 9. In response to the Final Office Action, Applicant proposed to further amend claim 2 to address the indefiniteness issue raised by the Examiner. Response to Final Office Action, dated September 14, 1994, at 3, 11. 10. Applicant also proposed further amendments to claim 1 to overcome the indefiniteness rejection and the prior art rejection over Ogino. Response to Final Office Action 2, 6, 8. 11. The Examiner refused to enter the proposed amendments to the claims presented by Applicant in the Response to Final Office Action. Advisory Action, mailed September 28, 1994. 12. Applicant filed a File Wrapper Continuation (“FWC”) application on October 14, 1994, which application was assigned number 08/323,500. B. Prosecution history of the original child application 13. Upon filing of the FWC application, the Applicant’s Response to Final Office Action, as filed in parent application 08/044,837, was entered. 14. The Examiner then entered a non-final office action rejecting claims 1-5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogino. Non-Final Office Action, mailed April 17, 1995, at 3-6. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 7 15. The Examiner again indicated that claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Non-Final Office Action 6. 16. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, Applicant proposed to further amend claim 2 to address the indefiniteness issue raised by the Examiner. Response to Non-Final Office Action, dated October 17, 1995, at 3, 11. 17. Applicant also further amended application claim 1, as shown. 1. (Three Times Amended) A bicycle pedal adapted for rotatable mounting to a bicycle pedal shaft and for use with a separate binding plate on a rider’s shoe, said bicycle pedal comprising: binding plate engaging means for engaging said binding plate, said binding plate engaging means having [a generally cylindrical] an opening to receive the pedal shaft and having first and second plate engaging members coupled so as to [move] rotate together in response to insertion of said binding plate and; binding plate clamping means for clamping said binding plate, said binding plate clamping means having first and second plate clamping members, coupled to [move] rotate together and respectively spaced apart from said first and second plate engaging members so as to simultaneously rotate [move] relative to both said first and second plate engaging members in an opposite angular direction therefrom in response to insertion of said binding plate; and biasing means for biasing said plate clamping members and said engaging members such that said first plate clamping member and said first plate engaging Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 8 member cooperatively hold said binding plate in place at a first position and said second plate clamping member and said second plate engaging member cooperatively hold said binding plate at a second position. Response to Non-Final Office Action 3. 18. Applicants argued that claim 1 distinguished over Ogino as follows: [T]he claims have been amended to clearly remove any interpretation of the Examiner that the pedal of [Ogino] moves as a whole (as a natural turning of the pedal), in response to insertion of a binding plate. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the “first and second plate clamping members [are] coupled to rotate together” . . . “in an opposite angular direction” from the first and second plating [sic] engaging members “in response to insertion of said binding plate”. This co- rotation in opposite angular directions, as set out in amended claim 1, is no where [sic] disclosed or suggested by [Ogino]. Rather the pedal disclosed in [Ogino] at most has co-movement of the entire pedal in response to insertion of the binding plate. Response to Non-Final Office Action 11, 2nd para. (emphasis original). 19. The Examiner then entered a final office action indicating that claim 2 was allowed, rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 14-17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32, 34- 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, first paragraph and 112, second paragraph, rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogino, and rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-17, 20-28, 32, 34-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 9 § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino. Final Office Action, mailed February 7, 1996 at 3-10. 20. Applicants filed a response to the Final Office Action, dated July 8, 1996, arguing: Furthermore, in view of the above it is also respectfully submitted that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 in view of [Ogino] respectfully must be withdrawn. With an understanding of the operation and structure of the engaging and clamping means, it is clear that [Ogino] does not even come close to teaching or suggesting the present invention. By way of example, [Ogino] clearly has no teaching or suggestion whatsoever of the following exemplary elements of Claim 1: (1) engaging means having first and second plate engaging members; (2) first and second engaging plate members which rotatable together [sic]; (3) clamping means having first and second clamping members, which also rotate together; (4) the first and second clamping members rotating simultaneously in the opposite angular direction from the first and second engaging members; and (5) biasing means biasing the first clamping member and the first engaging member. Response to Final Office Action 7 (emphasis in original). 21. The Examiner entered an Advisory Action on July 19, 1996, maintaining the rejections of the claims. 22. Applicant appealed the Examiner’s decision to the Board, arguing that application claim 1 recites that the “first and second plate clamping members [are] coupled to rotate together” … “in an opposite Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 10 angular direction” from the first and second plate engaging members “in response to insertion of said binding plate” and that this “co-rotation in opposite angular directions” is not disclosed or suggested by Ogino. Appeal Brief, dated February 20, 1997, at 23-24. 23. In a Decision dated February 28, 2000 (“Board Decision”), the Board reversed all of the rejections against the application claims. 24. In particular, the Board reversed the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based on Ogino, stating: Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being anticipated by the Ogino abstract, we agree with appellant (brief, page 23) that Ogino lacks binding plate clamping means and binding plate engaging means which are coupled so as to rotate relative to one another in opposite angular directions, as required by the claim. While the elastic members (7) identified by the examiner as “plate engaging members” appear to move outwardly away from the front binding plate engaging hook (6) as the binding plate (8) is inserted, we find no disclosure in the Ogino abstract of any pedal components coupled so as to rotate relative to one another in opposite angular directions. Board Decision 7. 25. The Board also reversed the obviousness rejection of application claim 1 based on Ogino by finding that “the modification proposed by the examiner would not overcome the above-noted deficiencies of the Ogino abstract.” Board Decision 10. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 11 26. The thrice-amended versions of application claims 1 and 2 correspond to issued claims 1 and 2, respectively, of Patent 6,216,558 B1. PRINCIPLES OF LAW What has become known as the “recapture rule,” prevents a patentee from regaining through a reissue patent subject matter that the patentee surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of claims in the patent sought to be reissued. In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate withdrawal or amendment … cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.” Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Federal Circuit's opinion in Clement discusses a three-step test for analyzing recapture. Step 1 involves a determination of whether and in what aspect any claims sought to be reissued are broader than the patent claims. The Federal Circuit reasoned that a reissue application claim deleting a limitation or Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 12 element from a patent claim is broader as to that limitation's or element's aspect. 131 F.3d at 1468. Step 2 involves a determination of whether the broader aspects of the reissue application claims relate to surrendered subject matter. 131 F.3d at 1468-69. In this respect, review of arguments and/or amendments during the prosecution history of the application, which matured into the patent sought to be reissued, is appropriate. In reviewing the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit observed that “[d]eliberately canceling or amending a claim in an effort to overcome a [prior art] reference strongly suggests that the Applicant admits that the scope of the claim before cancellation or amendment is unpatentable.” 131 F.3d at 1469. See also Hester Industries, 142 F.3d at 1481 (“an amendment to overcome a prior art rejection evidences an admission that the claim was not patentable”). Step 3 of the Clement test is applied when the broadening relates to surrendered subject matter and involves a determination whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue application claim. Id. ANALYSIS Independent reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 Independent claims 40, 65, and 71 each recites a helical spring limitation, which was the “key limitation” of original patent claim 2, and thus the broader aspects of these independent reissue claims, and their corresponding dependent claims, do not relate to surrendered subject matter. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 13 When an applicant rewrites an original dependent claim (original application claim 2) in independent form, and surrenders the original base claim (original application claim 1) by canceling or replacing that base claim by amendment, then a presumption of surrender arises. Cf. Honeywell Int’l. Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(en banc) (holding that rewriting a dependent claim into independent form is a narrowing amendment that creates a presumption of surrender for purposes of prosecution history estoppel). In this case, there were at least two distinct, mutually exclusive surrenders during prosecution. First, Applicant’s amendment of application claim 1 to require, inter alia, co-rotation in opposite angular directions, was a first surrender (Facts 17-25). Second, Applicant’s amendment of original application claim 2 to rewrite it in independent form to require a biasing means comprising a helical spring was a second, distinct surrender (Facts 2-5). In such a situation, to demonstrate a prima facie showing of recapture for any new reissue claim, the Examiner is required to show reasons why there is a presumption of recapture as to both of the distinct, mutually exclusive surrenders. This is because an objective observer would recognize that the presence of either of the distinct limitations required for patentability is sufficient to avoid recapture of surrendered subject matter. The Examiner’s determination that reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 recapture surrendered subject matter because they fail to recite (1) the Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 14 binding plate engaging means and the binding plate clamping means rotate in opposite angular directions in response to the insertion of the binding plate (as called for in application claims 1, 14, and 23), or (2) a second pedal portion mounted so as to move, relative to said first pedal portion and independently thereof” (as called for in application claim 6) (Ans. 10) is improper because original application claim 2 did not call for these limitations. Thus, reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 do not encompass surrendered subject matter as it pertains to original application claim 2. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner determined that original application claim 2 “has different scope than Claims 40, 65, and 71.” Ans. 20. Specifically, the Examiner noted that original claim 2 recited “biasing means for biasing said plate clamping members and said engaging members, wherein said biasing means comprises a helical spring configured to as to receive the pedal shaft therethrough.” The Examiner stated that because original claim 2 used the open-ended term “comprises,” the biasing means of original claim 2 “does not exclude additional, unrecited elements,” while “Claims 40, 65, and 71 specifically call for ‘a helical spring.’” Id. We agree with the Examiner that original claim 2 (see Fact 2) was broad enough to encompass a helical spring in combination with other additional, unrecited elements. We further agree that reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 specifically recite a helical spring. However, reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 are each directed to a bicycle pedal “comprising” a helical spring. Thus, the pedal of reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 is met by a bicycle pedal Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 15 having only a helical spring or by a pedal having a helical spring in combination with other additional, unrecited elements. As such, we see no difference in scope between original application claim 2 and reissue claim 40, 65, and 71 as it pertains to this key limitation. If anything, the Examiner’s analysis seems to imply that reissue claims 40, 65, and 71 are narrower in scope than original application claim 2. That, too, would not lead to impermissible recapture. As such, reissue claims 40, 43, 65, 67-70, 71, 73, 74, and 77 do not recapture surrendered subject matter. Independent reissue claim 55 Independent claim 55 recites a limitation calling for co-rotation in opposite angular directions, which was the “key limitation” of original patent claim 1, and thus the broader aspects of independent reissue claim 55, and its corresponding dependent claim, does not relate to surrendered subject matter. The “key limitation” as it pertains to application claim 1 is the limitation that the binding plate clamping means and the binding plate engaging means rotate together in opposite angular directions in response to insertion of a binding plate. In particular, Appellant amended application claim 1 to recite that the binding plate clamping means rotate together with the binding plate engaging members “in an opposite angular direction therefrom” (Fact 17). Appellant also argued to both the Examiner and the Board that claim 1 was patentable over Ogino because Ogino did not Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 16 disclose or suggest “co-rotation in opposite angular directions” as called for by amended application claim 1 (Facts 18, 22). The Board’s decision of February 28, 2000 reversed the Examiner’s rejections of application claim 1 under §§ 102 and 103, finding that the prior art fails to disclose “any pedal components coupled so as to rotate relative to one another in opposite angular directions” (Facts 24, 25). We do not find clear surrender of the subject matter of claim 1 requiring that the binding plate engaging means and the binding plate clamping means rotate “simultaneously.” Appellant’s arguments during prosecution of claim 1 focused on the language in claim 1 requiring the binding plate engaging means and binding plate clamping means to “rotate together” and “in opposite angular directions.” These arguments did not clearly rely on the additional language in claim 1 requiring these parts to rotate “simultaneously” to overcome the art, and the Board likewise did not rely on the “simultaneously” language when deciding to reverse the art rejection. Reissue claim 55 recites “first and second engaging members connected to a portion of said second housing which are coupled to rotate together in an opposite angular direction from first and second clamping members in response to the insertion of said cleat.” As such, independent reissue claim 55 includes the requirement of co-rotation in opposite angular directions in response to insertion of a cleat, which is the key limitation that was argued by Appellant and relied on by the Board to determine Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 17 patentability of the subject matter of application claim 1 over the cited prior art. Thus, neither independent reissue claim 55, nor its dependent claim 58, recaptures surrendered subject matter. CONCLUSION Reissue claims 40, 43, 55, 58, 65, 67-71, 73, 74, and 77 do not impermissibly recapture surrendered subject matter. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject reissue claims 40, 43, 55, 58, 65, 67-71, 73, 74, and 77 is REVERSED. REVERSED Vsh KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE CA 92614 Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 18 APPENDIX Rejected Independent Claims of Reissue Application 10/106,794, as Appealed 40. A bicycle pedal for releasibly engaging a cleat affixed to the bottom of a shoe, said pedal comprising: a spindle with one end adapted for attachment to a bicycle crank arm; a first housing and a second housing that rotates about said spindle, each housing separate from the other and having an opening for receiving said spindle, wherein said second housing mounted so as to move, relative to said first housing and independently thereof, in response to insertion of said cleat; and a spring loaded latch mechanism that pivots concentrically with the axis of said spindle, wherein said latch mechanism comprises: a first pair of hooked members and a second pair of hooked members, wherein the hooked members of each of said first and second pairs of hooked members are on opposite sides of the axis of said spindle, wherein said first pair of hooked members is connected to a portion of said first housing and said second pair of hooked members is connected to a portion of said second housing, said second pair of hooked members having hooked members coupled to simultaneously pivot together with respect to said first pair of hooked members in an opposite angular direction therefrom in response to the insertion of said cleat; and a helical spring configured to receive the spindle therethrough and hold the hooked members of said first and second pairs of hooked members apart from each other at substantially equal angles of spacing; wherein said spring loaded latch mechanism allows engagement with said cleat between one hooked member of said first pair of hooked members and one hooked member of said second pair of hooked members. Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 19 55. A bicycle pedal for releasibly engaging a cleat affixed to the bottom of a shoe, said pedal comprising: a spindle with one end adapted for attachment to a bicycle crank arm; a first housing, a second housing, and a third housing, each housing having an opening for receiving said spindle, wherein said second housing is separate from and between said first and third housings, said second housing mounted so as to move, relative to said first housing and independently thereof, about the axis of said spindle in response to insertion of said cleat; and a spring loaded latch mechanism that pivots concentrically with the axis of said spindle, wherein said latch mechanism comprises: hooked members for receiving said cleat including first and second engaging members connected to a portion of said second housing which are coupled to rotate together in an opposite angular direction from first and second clamping members in response to the insertion of said cleat, said first and second clamping members spaced apart from said first and second engaging members and connected to a portion of one of said first and third housings, wherein one of said first and second engaging members and one of said first and second clamping members form an adjacent pair of hooked members; and a spring that holds said hooked members apart from each other at substantially equal angles of spacing; wherein said spring loaded latch mechanism allows engagement with said cleat between said adjacent pair of hooked members. 65. A bicycle pedal adapted for rotatable mounting to a bicycle pedal shaft and for use with a separate binding plate on a rider's shoe, said bicycle pedal configured to engage said binding plate in at least two positions, a first Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 20 position and a second position, comprising: an engagement assembly comprising: an opening to receive the pedal shaft and engaging hooks including a first engaging hook and a second engaging hook coupled so as to rotate together in response to insertion of said binding plate; a clamp assembly mounted so as to move, relative to said engagement assembly and independently thereof, in response to insertion of said binding plate, said clamp assembly comprising: clamping hooks including a first clamping hook and a second clamping hook coupled to rotate together and respectively spaced apart from said first and second engaging hooks so as to simultaneously rotate relative to both said first and second engaging hooks in an opposite angular direction therefrom in response to insertion of said binding plate; and a helical spring for biasing said clamping hooks and said engaging hooks such that said first clamping hook and said first engaging hook cooperatively hold said binding plate in place at said first position and said second clamping hook and said second engaging hook cooperatively hold said binding plate at said second position, wherein said helical spring is configured to receive the pedal shaft therethrough. 71. A bicycle pedal adapted for a rotatable mounting to a bicycle pedal shaft and for use with a separate binding plate on a rider's shoe, said bicycle pedal comprising: a binding plate engaging hook having an axis of rotation about said pedal shaft for engaging said binding plate in at least two positions, a first position and a second position, said engaging hook having a portion connected to an opening to receive the pedal shaft and having first and second plate engaging members configured on opposite sides of said axis; a binding plate clamping hook for cooperating with said engaging hook to engage said binding plate, said clamping hook having first and second plate clamping members configured at said first and second Appeal 2009-013953 Application 10/106,794 Patent 6,216,558 21 positions, respectively spaced apart from said first and second plate engaging members; and a helical spring for biasing said plate clamping members and said plate engaging members, wherein said helical spring configured so as to receive the pedal shaft therethrough.