Ex Parte Pericevic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

12498110 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEKSANDAR PERICEVIC, STEPHAN PITZING,
JOHANN BAUMGARTNER, STEFFEN GEISSLER, and
ROBERT TRIMPE
____________

Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,1101
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–8 and 16.2 Appeal Br. 2. An oral hearing was
held on June 19, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 As indicated in the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Knorr-Bremse
Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 9–15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,110

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal
and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A commercial vehicle disc brake for use with a
brake disc, the disc brake being mountable on a stationary brake
carrier, the disc brake comprising:
a sliding caliper that straddles the brake disc in use;
two brake pads arranged in the caliper, the brake pads
being moveable in opposite directions in order to contact the
brake disc in braking operations;
at least one fastening element having a guide spar, the
fastening element being operatively configured for fastening the
caliper to the stationary brake carrier;
a brake application device having at least one adjusting
spindle, the brake application device being operable to press the
one of the two brake pads on an action-side of the disc brake
facing the brake application device against the brake disc;
an adjusting device by way of which a wear-induced
change in an air play between the brake pads and the brake disc
is compensatable;
a restoring device operatively arranged on the action-side
of the disc brake, the restoring device including a restoring
element, the restoring device being operable to automatically
bring the caliper into an initial position counter to a
displacement direction during brake application;
wherein the restoring device includes a supporting part,
the supporting part being operatively configured to remain in
position with respect to the stationary brake carrier during the
braking-induced displacement of the caliper, the supporting part
interacting with the restoring element, and
further wherein the restoring element and the adjusting
device are configured such that either the maximum possible
moving force of the restoring element is lower than the
minimum possible adjusting force of the adjusting device, or
the minimum possible moving force of the restoring element is
greater than the maximum possible adjusting force of the
adjusting device.
Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,110

3

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GB ‘104 (GB 2 345 104 A, published June 28, 2000),
Redenbarger (US 4,887,696, issued Dec. 19, 1989), and FR ‘485 (FR 2 807
485 A1, published Oct. 12, 2001).
II. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over GB ‘104, Redenbarger, FR ‘485, and Hoffman
(US 4,458,790, issued July 10, 1984).
III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GB ‘104, Redenbarger, FR ‘485, Hoffman, and Fujinami
(US 4,781,273, issued Nov. 1, 1988).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a restoring device operatively arranged
on the action-side of the disc brake, the restoring device including a
restoring element, the restoring device being operable to automatically bring
the caliper into an initial position counter to a displacement direction during
brake application.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner found that GB ‘104 does not disclose the restoring
device arranged as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5.
The Examiner found that Redenbarger discloses a disc brake
including a restoring device 22, 23, operatively arranged on an action-side of
the disc brake, and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the disc brake of GB ‘104 to include a
Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,110

4
restoring device located as taught by Redenbarger. Ans. 5–6 (citing Figs. 4,
5).
Appellants contend that Redenbarger does not teach a restoring device
on an “action side” of a brake. Appeal Br. 10–11. Rather, Appellants
contend that Redenbarger’s rubber bushing is shown located “dead center
between the two halves of the caliper in a hole in fixed brake mount 10.” Id.
at 11.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Appellants’ Specification
discloses that “a restoring device 13 is provided on the action side, that is to
say on the application side, preferably in the region of the locating bearing
10.” Spec. ¶ 47. The Specification also discloses that “the application-side
brake pad 4 is pressed against the brake disc 3” (Id. ¶ 46), and that the brake
application device (6) is operable to press application-side brake pad 4 on an
action-side of disc brake 3 (Id. ¶ 44). As shown in Figure 1, also with
reference to Figures 2 and 3 showing the location of restoring device 13 with
respect to other elements including caliper 1 and fastening element 10 shown
in Figure 1, restoring device 13 is arranged entirely on the action-side of disc
brake 3. Consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we construe the claim
limitation “arranged on the action-side of the disc brake” as “arranged
entirely on the action-side.”
Figures 3 and 4 of Redenbarger show a portion of a brake disc
assembly including a caliper 25 having housing portions 26, 27 located on
opposite sides of disc brake 9; backing plates 44, 49 and associated friction
elements 45, 48; and movable piston 39 connected to back plate 44. See
also col. 2, ll. 31–35, col. 2, l. 63–col. 3, l. 4. In this arrangement, piston 39
is located on the action-side of disc brake 9. Elastomeric bushing 22 is not
Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,110

5
located entirely on the action-side of disc brake 9. Instead, bushing 22 and
metal cylinder 23 are located entirely within the region defined by backing
plate 44 and friction element 48.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the disclosure in Redenbarger
relied on by the Examiner does not teach or suggest “a restoring device
operatively arranged on the action-side of the disc brake,” as required by
claim 1. In addition, the Examiner did not identify any disclosure in
Redenbarger showing that bushing 22 and metal cylinder 23, which are
provided on leg member 12, could be provided entirely on the action-side of
disc brake 9 in the brake assembly. Nor has the Examiner provided
evidence to show that bushing 22 and metal cylinder 23, if somehow
incorporated into GB ‘104’s brake assembly based on the location of
bearings 10, 11 (see Ans. 11), would necessarily “[be] operable to
automatically bring the caliper into an initial position counter to a
displacement direction during brake application,” as called for in claim 1.
As such, the rejection relies on speculation. Thus, we find that the Examiner
has not articulated an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to modify
GB ‘104 to include this claimed feature.
The Examiner’s reliance on FR ‘485 regarding the limitations recited
in the final “wherein” clause of claim 1 (Ans. 6–7) do not cure the
deficiencies of the combination of GB ‘104 and Redenbarger discussed
above.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its
dependent claims 2 and 3.

Appeal 2012-005666
Application 12/498,110

6
Rejections II and III
The rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 (Ans. 7–9) and claim 6 (id.
at 9) rely on the same unsupported findings and reasoning advanced for the
rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejections of these claims for the same reasons as those discussed for claim
1.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–8 and 16 are REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls