Ex Parte Odom

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2005

09489602 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte PAUL ODOM

Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application 09/489,602

ON BRIEF

Before FRANKFORT, PATE, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 18, 21 and 22, which are all of
the claims remaining in the application. Claims 2, 3, 19, 20, 23
and 24 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
2
Appellant’s invention relates to a bicycle crank structure
providing both strength enhancement and weight reduction
benefits. More particularly, it is indicated on page 3 of the
specification that
This invention replaces the double ended crank arm
design currently used on bicycles, with a triangulated crank
structure. Triangulation is accomplished by replacing a
straight bar type structure that connects the spindle to the
pedal shaft end of a crank arm, with a split structure that
has two separate tube segments, spaced away from a line
between the spindle end and the corresponding pedal shaft
attachment location, that line being the neutral axis of the
structure. During the rider’s power stroke, one such tube
segment would be mostly under tension while the other would
be mostly under compression. This largely eliminates high
bending stresses associated with the straight crank design.
It does so by moving structural material much further away
from the neutral axis of the crank than is possible with a
straight crank design.
Independent claims 1, 10, 17 and 22 are representative of
the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of those claims may be
found in Appendix A of appellant’s brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Bezin 4,811,626 Mar. 14, 1989
Schmidt 5,946,982 Sep. 7, 1999

Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
3
Claims 1, 4 through 18, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of
Bezin. This rejection is collectively set forth on pages 2-7 of
the final rejection (Paper No. 14, mailed August 13, 2002).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding the above-noted rejection,
we refer to the final rejection, the examiner's answer (Paper No.
21, mailed May 20, 2003) and appellant’s brief (Paper No. 20,
filed April 10, 2003) for a full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Like the examiner, we find that Schmidt discloses a bicycle
crank arm structure (1) projecting from a spindle shaft end and
comprising a first arm (2) having a first crank end connected
with respect to the spindle shaft end and a first distal end
terminating at a pedal attachment area (4); and a second arm (3)
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
4
having a second crank end connected with respect to the spindle
shaft end and a second distal end terminating at the pedal
attachment area (4); and wherein the second distal end is
connected with respect to the first distal end to form an angle
between the second arm and the first arm. Although Schmidt does
not expressly so state, it appear that the crank arm structure
(1) is cast and forged to obtain the configuration seen in
Figures 1 and 2 of the patent.
When compared with the bicycle crank structure defined in
the claims before us on appeal, the examiner notes (e.g., final
rejection, page 3) that Schmidt “fails to show each arm having a
hollow cross-section and the first and second arms comprising a
multi-piece assembly wherein the pieces are bonded together.” To
account for these differences, the examiner turns to Bezin,
urging that this patent teaches, in Figures 11-16, a bicycle
crank structure projecting from a spindle shaft end and
comprising an arm (1g) having a hollow cross-section (Fig. 13),
and wherein the crank structure comprises a multi-piece assembly
(1g-3g) that is bonded together.
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
5
From the foregoing teachings in Schmidt and Bezin, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
1) “modify the solid crank arms of Schmidt with the hollow cross-
sectioned crank arm of Bezin in order to reduce the cost of
material and the weight of the arm so that the overall cost can
be lowered and the [sic, make] operating the vehicle easier,” and
2) “modify the one piece molded crank arm of Schmidt with the
multi-piece assembly crank arm having pieces bonded together as
taught by Bezin in order to minimize the complexity in molding a
single piece apparatus having a complex shape and form so that
producing a crank arm is easier” (final rejection, pages 3-4).
For the reasons aptly set forth by appellant in the brief,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4
through 18, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Schmidt
in view of Bezin. Like appellant, we are of the view that,
absent hindsight derived from appellant’s own disclosure and
claims, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art
relied upon which would have made it obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to modify
the particular bicycle crank arm structure seen in Schmidt in the
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
6
manner urged by the examiner so as to result in appellant’s
claimed bicycle crank structure. As our court of review
indicated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is impermissible to use the claimed
invention as an instruction manual or "template" in attempting to
piece together isolated disclosures and teachings of the prior
art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.
Although it has been long recognized in the bicycle arts
that it is desirable to reduce the overall weight of a bicycle,
e.g., by using tubular elements in the construction of various
bicycle components, such as the bicycle frame or, as in Bezin,
for constructing a straight pedal crank arm, we note that in
pursuing the objective of providing “a weight-optimized crank arm
which can be manufactured at low cost” (col. 1, lines 36-38),
Schmidt opted to go in a different direction. In particular,
Schmidt devised a weight-saving crank arm design having two
spaced-apart solid cross-section connecting members or arms (2,
3) extending between the pedal eye (4) and the hub (13) for
receiving the spindle shaft end, wherein the connecting members
(2, 3) are arranged at a relatively large angle (21) with respect
to each other so that one connecting member will carry mostly
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
7
tensile forces and the other connecting member will carry mostly
compressive forces during use. In column 1, lines 50-58, Schmidt
indicates that
[d]ue to this separation of load-carrying functions,
structural properties such as, for example, stiffness and
strength of the connecting members can be advantageously
optimized. For example, each of the connecting members can
be precisely and selectively dimensioned such that the
tension-carrying member may have a thicker cross section
than that of the compression-carrying member since the
compressive strength of a material far exceeds the tensile
strength of the same material.
Thus, notwithstanding the teaching in Bezin of a hollow
fiber reinforced resin tubular crank arm structure having a lower
weight than a conventional straight double ended crank arm, given
the disclosure in Schmidt of providing solid cross-section
connecting members (2, 3) arranged in a generally triangulated
pattern and the recognition of significant advantages to be
derived therefrom, we are of the view that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to modify the connecting members of
Schmidt’s triangular type crank arm structure to have a hollow
cross-section, or to be formed as a multi-piece assembly, as
urged by the examiner.
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
8
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 17 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of
Bezin, or the rejection of dependent claims 4 through 9, 11
through 16, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on those
same references. Thus, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. PATE III ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CEF:pgc
Appeal No. 2005-0028
Application No. 09/489,602
9
Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC
39533 Woodward Avenue
Suite 140
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-0610