Ex Parte Norman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2017

13043554 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/043,554 03/09/2011 Mark Norman MERIT100016PUSA 9091
113600 7590 06/29/2017
Rrnnks; Kiisdiman Pf / Meritor
EXAMINER
Twenty Second Floor NGUYEN, VU Q
1000 Town Center
Southfield, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK NORMAN, ALEXANDER HOWARD, JONATHAN
JACKSON, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, and SIMON FISHER
Appeal 2016-007834
Application 13/043,554
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—14, and 16—24. Claims 7 and
15 have been canceled. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 1—2.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 9, 2011
(claiming benefit of GB 1007907.7 filed May 12, 2010), Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed December 17, 2015, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
August 18, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
June 30, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”)
mailed July 22, 2015.
Appeal 2016-007834
Application 13/043,554
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention generally concerns commercial vehicle brake systems
having drum brakes. The brake includes a brake shoe pivotally mounted on
a brake support, which is fixed to a vehicle, an actuation shaft rotatably
mounted in a boss of the brake support, and an actuation device, which
transfers rotational movement of the actuation shaft into movement of the
brake shoe. The brake drum’s axis of rotation has a fixed angle that is non­
parallel relative to the actuation shaft axis. Spec. 7—9; Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A brake comprising: a brake shoe pivotally
mounted on a brake support, the brake support non-rotatably
fixed to a vehicle, the brake shoe moveable between an engaged
position and a disengaged position and defining an axis of
rotation of an associated brake drum; an actuation shaft rotatably
mounted about a shaft axis in a boss of the brake support; and an
actuation device for transferring rotational movement of the
actuation shaft into movement of the brake shoe from the
disengaged position to the engaged position, wherein the axis of
rotation of the associated brake drum is non-parallel to the shaft
axis and is at a fixed angle relative to the shaft axis.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 8, 9, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Evans (US 1,919,882, issued July
25, 1933).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4—6, 10—14, and 16—22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans.
2
Appeal 2016-007834
Application 13/043,554
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Evans discloses “an actuation
shaft rotatably mounted about a shaft axis in a boss of the brake support”
and that “the axis of rotation of the associated brake drum is non-parallel to
the shaft axis and is at a fixed angle relative to the shaft axis” (claim 1)
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being anticipated by
Evans. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. Appellants contend Evans does not
disclose the disputed features of claim 1. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 1—7.
Specifically, Appellants contend Evans does not disclose that the drum’s
axis or rotation is fixed and non-parallel with respect to the actuation shaft
(App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—7) — “the shaft 49 axis is not ‘fixed’ and ‘non­
parallel’ relative to the axis of rotation of the drum as claim 1 requires”
(App. Br. 5). Appellants further contend that Evans describes the shaft
extending through an aperture in the support and surrounded by a flexible
boot, that “mounted” in claim 1 means the shaft is attached to (the boss in)
the support, and, therefore, “the shaft 49 of Evans is not rotatably mounted
in the support 11 as claim 1 requires” (App. Br. 7). See App. Br. 6—7.
The Examiner finds Evans discloses a brake with “an actuation shaft
(49) rotatably mounted about a shaft axis in a boss (75 [)]” (Final Act. 2
(citing Evans p. 4,11. 76—81)) “wherein the axis of rotation of the associated
3
Appeal 2016-007834
Application 13/043,554
brake drum is non-parallel to the shaft axis . . . and is at a fixed angle
relative to the shaft axis” (Final Act. 2—3 (citing Evans Fig. 2)). See Final
Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3.
We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of Evans and, instead,
agree with Appellants that Evans describes a shaft that does not have a fixed
non-parallel angle relative to the drum. Indeed, Evans’ shaft (49) and shaft
end portion (cam portion) (47) are disclosed as moving with respect to the
drum when the wheels are turned (steered). Evans p. 3,11. 2—13; Figs. 1, 2,
5; see App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—7. We also cannot agree with the
Examiner’s interpretation of Evans that “the shaft is attached to the support
via the boot (72), and thus can be said to be ‘mounted’ to the support.
Alternatively, the boot can be interpreted as part of the shaft.” Ans. 3. This
interpretation is incongruous with the disclosure of Evans, which describes
the shaft passing through the brake support and being attached to (supported
by) the members (39) and (44) of the brake shoes (16) and (17). See Evans
p. 2,1. 108—p. 3,1. 13; Figs. 1, 5; App. Br. 6—7.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that Evans discloses the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claim 1 . Dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 23, and 24 depend on
claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1—3, 8, 9, 23, and 24.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 10 and dependent claims 4—
6, 11—14, and 16—22 in view of Evans. See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 3^4. We
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of these claims for the same
reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 {supra). The Examiner does not
4
Appeal 2016-007834
Application 13/043,554
adequately explain how Evans would have suggested the disputed features to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3, 8,
9, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4—6,
10-14, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—14, and 16—24.
REVERSED
5