Ex Parte McAndrews

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2014

11771864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL McANDREWS
____________

Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 14, and 15. Appeal Br. 7. Claims 5, 8–13, and
16–27 have been cancelled. Id. at 17–18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to an improved shock absorber
system to be incorporated into the suspension system of a bicycle.” Spec.
¶ 3. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on
appeal:
1. A damper for a bicycle, comprising:
a primary unit comprising a damper tube;
a piston rod that supports a main piston, wherein said
main piston is movable within said damper tube of said primary
unit, said main piston and said damper tube at least partially
defining a compression chamber and a rebound chamber;
a reservoir tube that is outside of said compression
chamber of said damper tube, the reservoir tube comprising a
reservoir fluid chamber;
an inertia valve within said reservoir tube;
a flow path connecting said reservoir fluid chamber and
said compression chamber of said primary tube, said inertia
valve being responsive to terrain-induced forces and not
responsive to rider-induced forces when said damper is
assembled to the bicycle,
further comprising a damping valve in said reservoir
tube, wherein when said inertia valve is open, said damping
valve opens when there is 25 pounds of force on said damping
valve.

EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Shinbori US 4,880,213 Nov. 14, 1989
Fox1 US 6,604,751 B2 Aug. 12, 2003
Becker US 7,699,146 B1 Apr. 20, 2010

1 Fox is incorporated by reference into Becker. The Examiner relies
on Fox in the rejection of claim 1 for the explicit disclosure of certain
properties inherent in Becker. Ans. 4 n.1.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

3
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Ans. 5.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Becker. Id.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Becker and Shinbori. Id.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112

Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites as follows:
2. The damper of Claim 1, wherein at a piston
speed of said main piston of 4 meters/second said
damping valve opens before flow through said
inertia valve is maximized.

In a Final Office Action issued before the Non-Final Office Action on
appeal, the Examiner rejected claim 2 as indefinite and provided a
construction for “purposes of examination”:
In particular, the phrase ‘wherein at a piston speed
of said main piston of 4 meters/second said
damping valve opens before flow through said
inertia valve is maximized’ is indefinite because
the maximum flow through the inertia valve is
conditional upon the operating variables of the
damper. For instance, the flow through the inertia
valve appears to be dependent on the force of
impact, duration of impact, succession of varying
impacts, and mass placed on the bicycle, among
others. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the
intended definition of maximized flow is the
absolute maximum flow that is capable of passing
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

4
through the inertia valve, the maximum flow for
each individual actuation of the inertia valve, or
some other alternative definition. For purposes of
examination, this phrase is being interpreted as --
wherein at a piston speed of said main piston of 4
meters/second said damping valve opens before
flow through said inertia valve reaches an absolute
maximum amount of flow capable of passing
through said inertia valve--.
Final Act. 3 (mailed Apr. 28, 2011).
In an Amendment filed after that Final Action, Appellant did not
amend claim 2, but rather asserted that “the acknowledgment of the
Examiner’s interpretation of Claim 2 . . . would resolve the indefiniteness
issue with respect to Claim 2.” Amendment After Final 4, Summary of
Interview section 4 (filed Sept. 28, 2011); see also id., Remarks section, at 5.
Then, in the Non-Final Office Action currently on appeal, the Examiner
stated, “[w]hile Applicant has indicated that the Examiner’s previous
interpretation is adopted, the claim has not been amended to reflect the
interpretation. Accordingly, claim 2 remains rejected.” Non-Final Act. 2
(mailed Oct. 18, 2011).
On appeal, Appellant asserts that claim 2 is not indefinite in light of
the factors listed in MPEP § 2173.02, namely: “(A) The content of the
particular application disclosure; (B) The teachings of the prior art; and (C)
the claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing the ordinary
level of skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Appeal Br. 7
(citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2173.02 (8th ed.,
Rev. 8, July 2010)). As to the first two factors, Appellant states:
The invention of Claim 2 is directed toward a
damper for a bicycle in which a damping valve
within the reservoir tube is configured to work in
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

5
conjunction with the inertia valve within the
reservoir tube to define the compression damping
curve of the damper under normal operating
conditions. In the prior art constructions of Becker
and Fox, a blow-off or pressure relief valve is
provided in the reservoir tube and the primary
damping valve is located in the main body of the
damper. By definition, the blow-off or pressure-
relief valve is intended to respond to ‘severe’
shocks and is not designed to normally and
routinely work in conjunction with the inertia
valve. Therefore, Claim 2 apprises one of skill in
the art that the claimed damping valve, at the
recited piston speed, opens in response to normal
operating pressures of the damping fluid and not
because the inertia valve flow is maximized at
which point the inertia valve begins choking fluid
flow and raising the internal fluid pressure of the
damper to a very high level.
Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant also asserts that the “prosecution history provides sufficient
clarity of the proper interpretation of Claim 2” because the Examiner, in the
Final Office Action mailed April 28, 2011, construed the claim for purposes
of examination. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that the Specification contains no description
of the limitation recited in claim 2, except for a sentence in the “Summary of
the Invention” section that essentially tracks the claim language. Ans. 5
(citing Spec. 32 (“When the inertia valve is open, the damping valve opens
before flow through the inertia valve is maximized.”)). Further, the
Examiner highlights the fact that Appellant did not actually amend claim 2

2 On page 3 of the Specification, the paragraphs are not numbered.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

6
in light of the Examiner’s prior interpretation. Id. at 6. The Examiner
repeats the prior reasoning, including that the “maximum flow through the
inertia valve is conditional upon the operating variables of the damper” and
that it is unclear which definition of “maximized” is intended. Id.
In reply, Appellant asserts that the lack of written description is
irrelevant and that the Examiner improperly focuses on only the first factor
from the MPEP. Reply Br. 4. Appellant also asserts that an
acknowledgement of the Examiner’s prior interpretation should suffice to
traverse the rejection. Id. at 4–5.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as
indefinite. As to the first factor, Appellant’s argument fails to show that the
Specification aids in providing “definiteness” to claim 2. In fact, Appellant
does not cite to any statements in the Specification at all. Similarly, as to the
second factor, Appellant generally discusses Becker and Fox but fails to cite
to any specific statements from those references that demonstrate that the
language in claim 2 is not indefinite. Appellant fails to provide any
additional argument or evidence on the last factor—the interpretation given
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
acknowledgment of an examiner’s prior interpretation of a claim term, made
for purposes of examination, resolves an indefiniteness rejection as to that
claim term. The section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure cited
does not support Appellant’s position. In other words, that section does not
allow an applicant to rely on a statement in the prosecution history in lieu of
amending the rejected claim. Instead, it provides that if “the examiner
considers applicant’s arguments to be persuasive,” the examiner may “make
App
App

spec
be th
§ 21
not w
rejec
unpa
“susp
relie
repro
eal 2012-0
lication 11
ific referen
e basis as
73.02. Mo
ithdrawn
tion of cla

The

The Exa
tentable o
ension da
f feature.”
duced bel
11437
/771,864
ce to port
to why the
reover, th
the rejecti
im 2 unde
rejection
§ 10
miner reje
ver Becker
mpers hav
Becker, c
ow:
ions of app
previous
at section
on at issue
r 35 U.S.C
of claims
3 as unpa
cted claim
. Non-Fin
ing an ine
ol. 1, ll. 29
7
licant’s re
rejection w
does not ap
. For thes
. § 112, se
1–4, 6, an
tentable o
s 1–4, 6, a
al Act. 3–
rtia valve
–32. Figu
marks tha
as withdr
ply becau
e reasons,
cond para
d 7 under
ver Becker
nd 7 unde
7. Becker
and a user
re 9B from
t were con
awn.” See
se the Exa
we affirm
graph.
35 U.S.C.

r 35 U.S.C
relates to
adjustable
Becker
sidered to
MPEP
miner has
the

. § 103 as

pressure-
is

Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

8
Figure 9B shows a cross-sectional view of a rear shock absorber and
remote reservoir. Id., col. 2, ll. 27–28.
A. Claim 1
The parties’ dispute regarding claim 1 relates solely to the final
limitation, which recites:
further comprising a damping valve in said
reservoir tube, wherein when said inertia valve is
open, said damping valve opens when there is 25
pounds of force on said damping valve.

The Examiner found that pressure-relief valve 541 (see Becker, Fig.
9B) satisfied the recited “damping valve” but that Becker did not disclose
the recited feature that “said damping valve opens when there is 25 pounds
of force on said damping valve.” Non-Final Act. 4. As to that, the
Examiner stated as follows:
However, Becker discloses that the force that
opens the damping valve is variable and set by the
user (see col. 11, lines 7–18). Thus, the damping
force of the damping valve has been recognized as
a result-effective variable and it would have been
obvious to set the damping valve to open at 25
pounds to optimize the damping characteristics for
a particular rider and/or for particular terrain
conditions (see MPEP 2144.05.11. Optimization of
Ranges).
Id.
First, Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that pressure-relief valve 541 in Becker is a “portion of a two
component blow-off valve” and that “it would not be obvious to modify the
opening threshold to change the nature of the valve from a blow-off valve to
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

9
a normal damping valve.” Id. at 12–13. In support of this argument,
Appellant relies on various statements in Fox, which Appellant asserts show
that blow-off valves have opening forces “5 or 10” times greater than the
recited 25-pound force. Id. at 13 (citing Fox, col. 16, ll. 39–44 for disclosing
that “blow-off valve 178 requires a force of 248 pounds to open” and Fox,
col. 26, ll. 35–42 for disclosing “an opening force of 124 pounds”). Based
on the alleged “drastic difference in the opening forces between the claimed
damping valve and the prior art blow-off valves,” Appellant asserts that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal
Br. 13.
Second, assuming a prima facie case has been established, Appellant
asserts that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention and that
the claimed “25 pounds of force” “falls within a critical range of opening
pressures that avoids the locked-out nature of the prior art.” Id. As to
teaching away, Appellant asserts that the prior art discloses “providing a
blow-off or pressure-relief valve that opens in response to high fluid
pressures and, thus, high opening forces (on the order of 5–10 times the
claimed opening force).” Appeal Br. 13–14. According to Appellant, this
“teaches away from the claimed invention, in which the damping valve,
located in the reservoir tube along with the inertia valve, opens at a low
force (i.e., at 25 pounds) . . . .” Id. at 14. As to the alleged criticality of the
claimed value, Appellant asserts as follows:
As a result of the opening force of the claimed
damper being drastically lower than the opening
forces of the prior art, the claimed damper
provides a progressive damping curve in contrast
to the on/off nature of the prior art. The opening
force being low enough to allow the damping
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

10
valve to open at low or normal operating pressures
is critical to the desired performance of the
claimed damper.
Id.
The Examiner responds as follows regarding the alleged need to
change the nature of the valve from a blow-off valve to a normal damping
valve:
Becker states that ‘the pre-load created by spring
550 [on valve 541] will never exceed the spring
force/pressure needed to open blowoff valve 140.’
(See col. 11, lines 13–18). Thus, Becker explicitly
teaches that the threshold for opening the valve
(541) is below the threshold for opening a blowoff
valve (140). Accordingly, modifying the opening
threshold of the valve (541) would not change the
nature of the valve as disclosed by Becker.
Ans. 7 (insertion in original).
Further, the Examiner asserts that the statements from Fox cited by
Appellant relate to a component not relied on in the rejection. Id.
The Examiner also asserts that the prior art does not teach away from
setting an opening force at 25 pounds because Becker discloses that
pressure-relief valve 541 can be set to a force “other than a severe shock.”
Ans. 9 (citing Becker, col. 14, claim 11, ll. 32–35). In addition, the
Examiner asserts that “based on the specification of the present application,
the opening force of 25 pounds does not appear to be a critical value.” Id. at
8. Specifically, the Examiner highlights that the “specification discloses that
the damping valve may open at 25 lbs., 35 lbs., 45 lbs., 55 lbs., 65 lbs., or 75
lbs” (citing Spec. ¶ 69) and that “[i]t does not appear that the device would
operate any differently or produce unexpected results when the opening
force of the valve is” set to these or other values, “other than having
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

11
different thresholds at which the device switches from a locked out state to a
softer damping state.” Ans. 8–9.
In reply, Appellant admits that “the opening threshold of the
adjustable valve 541 will always be below the opening threshold of the non-
adjustable valve 140” but still asserts that “it would not be obvious to
modify either of the pressure-relief valve 541 or the blow-off valve 140 to
have an opening threshold below that of a blow-off valve.” Reply Br. 5. In
support, Appellant asserts that “Becker explicitly indicates that the terms
‘pressure-relief valve’ and ‘blow-off valve’ are interchangeable.” Id. (citing
Becker, col. 5, ll. 25–27).
We conclude that the Examiner has, contrary to Appellant’s first
argument, established a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, Appellant
admits that the opening threshold of pressure-relief valve 541 can be below
the opening threshold of blow-off valve 140. Reply Br. 5. This directly
conflicts with Appellant’s position that “it would not be obvious to modify
either of the pressure-relief valve 541 or the blow-off valve 140 to have an
opening threshold below that of a blow-off valve.” Id.
First, for the opening force of pressure-relief valve 541 to be below
that of blow-off valve 140 (as Appellant admits is possible), the user must
modify pressure-relief valve 541 to have an opening threshold force below
that of a blow-off valve. Here, the parties do not dispute that the opening
force of pressure-relief valve 541 is set by the user. Id.; Ans. 9. And
Appellant has not asserted or provided any evidence to show that pressure-
relief valve 541 could not be lowered to an opening threshold force of 25
pounds.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

12
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that pressure-
relief valve 541 of Becker is a “blow-off valve.” Contrary to Appellant’s
statement, Becker does not “explicitly indicate[] that the terms ‘pressure-
relief valve’ and ‘blow-off valve’ are interchangeable.” See Reply Br. 5.
Instead, the cited passage of Becker discusses not pressure-relief valve 541,
but “pressure-relief valve 400,” and, in relation to an embodiment not relied
on by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1. See Becker, col. 5, ll. 25–30.
Although this passage does state that “pressure-relief valve 400 . . . may
sometimes be referred to as a blow-off valve,” we do not interpret this
statement as applying to pressure-relief valve 541 or to pressure-relief valves
in general.
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that the allegedly exemplary
opening thresholds found in Fox, and relied on by Appellant (Appeal Br.
13), relate to the opening force of blowoff shims 178, which were not relied
on by the Examiner in the rejection. See, e.g., Fox, col. 16, ll. 33–58; Ans.
7. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
We now turn to Appellant’s argument that the prior art teaches away
from the relevant aspect here—setting the opening force of the damping
valve to 25 pounds. We find that Appellant has not established that the prior
art taught away from the claimed invention because Appellant has not
demonstrated that “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed Cir. 1994). At best, the
prior art here merely discloses an alternative, which is not, by itself,
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

13
sufficient to demonstrate a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the[] [disclosed]
alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . .”).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s allegations regarding the
criticality of the claimed opening force. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that, “based on the specification of the present application, the
opening force of 25 pounds does not appear to be a critical value.” Ans. 8.
Here, the Specification provides numerous possibilities for opening
thresholds (Spec. ¶ 69) and does not disclose either (1) Appellant’s current
rationale for the alleged criticality or (2) a preference for any specific value.
And even with respect to the current assertions (Appeal Br. 14), Appellant
has failed to put forth any factual evidence of the alleged unexpected results
to support the criticality of the claimed value. See In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that unexpected results
must be established by factual evidence.”).
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.

B. Claim 2
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner stated that “since Becker discloses
the same structural components of the claimed invention and it would have
been obvious to set the damping valve to open at 25 pounds of force, the
device in Becker would perform the same function that at a piston speed of
said main piston of 4 meters/second said damping valve opens before flow
through said inertia valve is maximized.” Non-Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

14
Appellant argues as follows regarding claim 2:
Regardless of the exact value of the opening force,
whether the damping valve opens before flow
through the inertia valve is maximized is
dependent upon relative characteristics of the
damping valve and the inertia valve (e.g., the size
and number of the ports in each valve). The
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to this claimed subject
matter. Appellant submits that in the prior art
designs, the pressure-relief valve is unlikely to
remain open once the inertia valve opens because
of the immediate reduction in the internal fluid
pressure of the shock absorber and the high force
(pressure) required to open the pressure-relief
valve.
Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner responds that “[s]ince the modified device of Becker is
structurally the same as the device recited in claims 1 and 2, the modified
Becker device is configured to perform the functions recited in claim 2.”
Ans. 11. The Examiner continues, “[w]hether the pressure relief valve is
likely or unlikely to open is not determinative as to whether the claimed
features are disclosed. Since the pressure-relief valve is capable of opening
at the very least in an ‘unlikely’ event, the claimed features of claim 2 are
disclosed.” Id.
Appellant replies that “the Examiner has not established that the
damping valve would necessarily open before flow through the inertia valve
is maximized.” Reply Br. 6–7. Further, Appellant asserts that “the burden is
on the Examiner to establish that, if the threshold opening force of Becker
was adjusted to the claimed 25 pounds of force, the pressure-relief valve
would open before flow through the inertia valve was maximized.” Id. at 7.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

15
Here, the Examiner has asserted that because Becker discloses the
same structure recited in parent claim 1 (or at least an obvious variant), then
the characteristic or property recited in claim 2 is inherent. Non-Final Act.
6; see, e.g., MPEP § 2112.01. In such a situation, “when the PTO shows
sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For the reasons discussed in
relation to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has provided that “sound
basis.” Thus, Appellant has the burden to demonstrate that the properties
recited in claim 2 are not necessarily present in the Becker device. See In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed and
prior art products are identical or substantially identical, . . . the PTO can
require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or
inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”).
Here, Appellant fails to substantively address that burden and instead
asserts that the burden remains with the Examiner. Further, Appellant
provides no factual basis for its assertions that “whether the damping valve
opens before flow through the inertia valve is maximized is dependent upon
relative characteristics of the damping valve and the inertia valve” or that the
prior art is “unlikely” to possess the claimed properties. Appeal Br. 15.
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

16
C. Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7
Appellant does not separately argue claims 3, 4, 6, or 7, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1. Reply Br. 6 (“Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 were
not argued separately in the Appeal Brief and, thus, stand or fall with Claim
1.”). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the rejection
of those dependent claims.
The rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Becker and Shinbori

Claims 14 and 15, which depend from claim 1, recite as follows:
14. The damper of Claim 1, wherein said inertia
valve has a plurality of flow passages having a
total cross-sectional area of no more than 8
millimeters squared.

15. The damper of Claim 1, wherein said inertia
valve has a plurality of flow passages having a
total cross-sectional area of no more than 6
millimeters squared.

In rejecting these claims, the Examiner relied on Shinbori for the
teaching that “it was known that the area of a passage from one chamber to
another in a damping device determines the damping force produced by the
passage.” Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Shinbori, col. 5, ll. 15–24). Further, the
Examiner stated that “[i]t would have been obvious to set the area of the
flow passages of Becker to 8 or 6 millimeters squared to produce the desired
damping characteristics of the inertia valve to suit a particular rider or terrain
condition.” Non-Final Act. 7.
Appellant asserts that while the general teaching from Shinbori may
have been known, “the prior art alone or in combination does not teach or
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

17
suggest the specific limits on the area of the flow passages of an inertia
valve that is designed to operate in combination with a damping valve under
low or normal operating pressures of a damper.” Appeal Br. 15. Further,
Appellant asserts that the claimed values are critical because they “limit[]
the contribution of the inertia valve to the total fluid flow, such that the
damping valve can be designed to provide desirable damping both when the
inertia valve is open and when the inertia valve is closed.” Id. at 16.
The Examiner responds that Fox discloses an inertia valve with flow
passages with a cross-sectional area of 8.2 mm2. Ans. 12 (citing Fox, col.
21, ll. 56–64 and Fig. 9). Further, the Examiner asserts that “Shinbori
teaches that the area of flow passages is a result-effective variable in
determining the damping force produced by the passage (see Shinbori, col.
5, lines 15–24). It would have been a matter of routine experimentation to
optimize the flow area to less than 8 mm2 or 6 mm2.” Ans. 12. In addition,
the Examiner asserts that the claimed values “do[] not appear critical
because the specification of the present application stated that the area of the
flow passage could be ‘2 square millimeters to 100 square millimeters.’” Id.
(citing Spec. ¶ 82).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant admits that the “the area of flow
passages is a result-effective variable in determining the damping force
produced by the passage.” Reply Br. 7. Appellant also asserts that the
“disclosure of Fox relied upon for obtaining the starting point of 8.2mm2 is
directed toward a theoretical discussion of fluid forces that tend to move an
inertia valve off-center of the shaft upon which the inertia valve slides.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, Appellant fails
to explain why the embodiment disclosed in Fox with a cross-sectional area
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

18
of 8.2 mm2 is irrelevant. That discussion relates to an assessment of reaction
force differentials present if two flow passages are of slightly different sizes
based on manufacturing process errors. As found by the Examiner,
however, that section still teaches flow passages with a total cross-sectional
area of 8.2 mm2—a value quite close to the claimed values. Ans. 12. Based
on that conclusion and Appellant’s admission that the area of the flow
passages is a “result-effective variable,” we determine that the Examiner has
made a prima facie case of obviousness that one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would optimize the total cross-sectional area of the
flow passages to “produce the desired damping characteristics of the inertia
valve to suit a particular rider or terrain condition.” Non-Final Act. 7; see
also MPEP § 2144.05.II.B (“A particular parameter must first be recognized
as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized
result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said
variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.”).
As to the alleged criticality of the claimed values, the record is devoid
of any factual evidence supporting Appellant’s arguments. See De Blauwe,
736 F.2d at 705. As with its disclosure regarding opening forces for the
damping valve, here, the Specification teaches a broad range of possibilities
for the total cross-sectional area of the flow passages (Spec. ¶ 82) and does
not disclose either (1) Appellant’s current rationale for the alleged criticality
of the claimed values or (2) a preference for any specific value.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 14 and 15.
Appeal 2012-011437
Application 11/771,864

19
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and AFFIRM the rejection of
claims 1–4, 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

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

Klh