Ex Parte Nago

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10904093 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DAISUKE NAGO
__________

Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093

- 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Nagano (EP 0,389,931 B1).

APPELLANT’S INVENTION
Appellant discloses a bicycle brake controller having a two-part
“adjustment unit” that sets the resting position of a brake lever relative to a
handlebar and a leverage of the brake lever on a brake cable (herein “brake
leverage”). (See below). Appellant’s Fig. 3, reproduced below, shows an
exemplary brake controller 23f including an adjustment unit 32. (Spec.
¶ 10).

Appellant’s Fig. 3 is a cross sectional view of Appellant’s brake
controller.

Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093

- 3 -
As shown, the adjustment unit 32 has a first adjustment component 56
and a cam surface 57a. (Spec. ¶ 25). The first adjustment component 56 is
wedged between the brake lever 31 and mounting bracket 30 of the brake
controller 23f, thereby adjusting the resting position of the brake lever 31
relative to the mounting bracket 30 and handlebar (not shown). (Id.). The
cam surface 57a abuts against a sliding detent member 52 that secures the
brake cable 25 to the brake lever 31, thereby adjusting the distance between
the detent member 52 and the brake lever’s pivot 43 to control the brake
leverage.1 (Id.). Because the first adjustment component 56 and cam
surface 57a are paired parts of a singular adjustment unit 32, the resting
position of the brake lever 31 can be factored into the configuration of the
cam surface 57a (e.g., to set the same initial brake leverage for any resting
position of the brake lever 31). (Spec. ¶ 26).
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis on a “first
adjustment component.”
1. A bicycle brake control device adapted to move a brake
operating element, wherein the device comprises:
a mounting bracket for mounting the device to a bicycle;
a lever mounted to the mounting bracket for rotation
around a pivot axis, wherein the lever comprises a brake
operating component and a brake operating element detent; and
an adjustment unit comprising:
a first adjustment component that adjusts a
selected position of the lever relative to the mounting
bracket; and

1 The detent member 52 slides within a groove 51 of the brake lever 31.
(Spec. ¶ 23; Fig. 4). As the cam surface 57a positions the detent member 52
closer to the pivot 43, the brake leverage increases (and vice versa). (Spec.
¶¶ 27-28; Fig 3).
Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093

- 4 -
a second adjustment component that adjusts a
position of the brake operating element when the lever is
in the selected position.

CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES
Claim 1 is rejected as anticipated by Nagano’s brake controller
(described below). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
a second cam surface 17 of Nagano’s brake controller constitutes a “first
adjustment component,” as claimed, because the cam surface 17 does not
adjust a selected position of the a brake lever relative to its mounting
bracket. (Br. 3:16-4:24). We agree for the reasons below.

ANALYSIS
Nagano’s Fig. 1, reproduced below, shows Nagano’s brake controller
including a cam face 15. (Nagano, col. 5. ll. 14-19).

Nagano’s Fig. 1 is a cross sectional view of Nagano’s brake
controller.

Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093

- 5 -
As shown, the cam face 15 has a first cam surface 16 and the above-
noted second cam surface 17. Like Appellant’s cam surface 57a, Nagano’s
cam surfaces 16, 17 abut against a sliding cable retainer 7 that secures the
brake cable 51 to the brake lever 3, thereby adjusting the distance between
the retainer 7 and the brake lever’s pivot 41 to control the brake leverage.2
(Nagano col. 4, l. 57-col. 5, l. 7; col. 6, l. 58-col. 7. l. 56).
In finding that Nagano’s second cam surface 17 constitutes a “first
adjustment component,” as claimed, the Examiner addresses Nagano’s Fig.
4, reproduced below.

Nagano’s Fig. 4 is a schematic side view of Nagano’s brake
controller and shows the controller’s movement distances.

Particularly, the Examiner found that the movement distance of the
brake lever (dδp) varies in accord with the distance of the cable retainer 7
from the brake lever’s pivot (i.e., lever shaft 4); and that the second cam

2 Nagano’s cam surfaces 16, 17 sequentially control the brake leverage.
(Nagano col. 6, l. 58-col. 7, l. 22). Similar to Appellant’s brake controller,
Nagano’s cable retainer 7 slides within a recessed guide face 33 of the brake
lever 3. (Nagano col. 5, ll. 14-19). As the cam surfaces 16, 17 position the
retainer 7 closer to the brake lever’s pivot 4, the brake leverage increases
(and vice versa). (Nagano col. 5, l. 42-col. 6, l. 37).
Appeal 2009-015101
Application 10/904,093

- 6 -
surface 17, by adjusting that distance, also adjusts the movement distance of
the brake lever (dδp) so as to constitute a first adjustment component that
adjusts a selected position of the lever relative to the mounting bracket as
claimed. (Ans. 7:6-14). We agree with the Examiner insofar that both of
Nagano’s cam surfaces 16, 17, by adjusting the distance of the retainer 7
from the pivot, also adjust the relative movement distances of the brake
cable (dδq) and brake lever (dδp) (i.e., adjust the ratio of those movement
distances).
The Examiner, however, does not explain how the second cam surface
17 also necessarily adjusts the position of the brake lever 3 relative to the
brake controller’s mounting bracket 1, as required by claim 1. That is, the
Examiner does not explain how adjusting the relative distance movements of
the cable (dδq) and lever (dδp), in turn, necessarily adjusts a selected
position of the brake lever 3 relative to the mounting bracket 1 as claimed.
For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding Nagano anticipates claim 1. We therefore reverse the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-17 for the same reasons.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Nagano is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk