Ex parte Stewart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2001

08935655 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2001)

In the final rejection (Paper No. 5), the examiner referred to claims1
4 through 7 as claims 1 through 4, respectively, due to a claim numbering
error by the appellant which has since been corrected.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN V. STEWART
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application 08/935,655
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE and LAZARUS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
John V. Stewart originally took this appeal from the
final rejection of claims 4 through 7. Inasmuch as the1
appellant has canceled claims 4 and 7, the appeal now involves
claims 5 and 6, the only claims currently pending in the
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
2
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a quick-release bicycle axle
fastener. Claims 5 and 6 read as follows:
5. An improved bicycle wheel axle assembly for
bicycles of a type having two opposed axle mounting
plates with open-ended slots and safety retention
surfaces, a hollow wheel axle, a spindle passing
through the hollow axle, an adjustment nut on one
end of the spindle, a cam on the other end of the
spindle, the cam having a closed position that
clamps the axle between the mounting plates, the
improvement comprising a spring attached to the cam
that urges the cam to rotate to its closed position.
6. A quick-release bicycle axle fastener for
attaching a hollow axle between two safety dropouts
on a bicycle, comprising:
a spindle having a first end and a second end,
the spindle extending through the hollow axle;
a cam pivotally mounted on the first end of the
spindle;
a lever attached to the cam;
a cam follower slidably mounted on the spindle
adjacent to, and inboard of, the cam, the cam
operating against the follower to move the follower
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
3
axially along the spindle during pivoting of the
cam; and
a spring acting between the spindle and the cam,
urging the cam to pivot in a direction that moves
the follower inward toward the second end of the
spindle.
THE PRIOR ART
The reference relied on by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation is:
Poehlmann et al. (Poehlmann) 4,763,957 Aug.
16, 1988
THE REJECTION
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Poehlmann.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 16) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 15) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
4
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Poehlmann discloses a bicycle wheel arrangement having a
quick-release feature. In Poehlmann’s words,
there is a customary pair of bicycle front forks 6
and 7, each having an end slot 8 or opening therein.
Extending through both openings 8 is an axle 9
symmetrical about an axis 11 and having threaded
ends 12 and 13. The end 12 receives a nut 14. Also
slipped over the end 12 is a cup 16 having a flange
17 interposed between the fork 7 and a tube 18
fitting coaxially over the axle 9. A similar cup 19
fits over the tube and is interposed between the end
of the tube and the fork 6. A washer 21 is on the
axle 9 against the outside of the fork 6.
Threads on the end 13 receive a special
tensioning device. This includes a nut block 22
(see FIGS. 6 and 7) threaded into chosen position.
The block 22 has a pair of side grooves 23 leading
to transverse openings defining arcuate ends 24.
The grooves 23 and ends 24 receive aligned pins 26
of a fastening lever 27 thus pivotally mounted on
the block 22. The lever 27 is bifurcated and
receives a latch 28 mounted on a cross pin 29 and
urged by a spring 31 into a holding position. The
flat lower end 32 of the latch 28 seats on the flat
top 33 of the block 22. Near its pins 26, the lever
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
5
27 carries a pair of eccentric cams 36. When the
lever 27 is in the position shown in FIGS. 2 and 3,
eccentric cams press against the washer 21 and thus
draw the axle 9 toward the left in FIG. 2. By a
quick cam action, this affords a tight abutment of
the cups 16 and 19 with the axle tube 18 and the
forks 6 and 7 to provide a set, but adjustable,
assembly and an easy release [column 2, line 52,
through column 3, line 11].
As indicated above, the subject matter recited in claims
5 and 6 comprises, inter alia, a spring. Claim 5 requires “a
spring attached to the cam that urges the cam to rotate to its
closed position,” and claim 6 requires “a spring acting
between
the spindle and the cam, urging the cam to pivot in a
direction that moves the follower inward toward the second end
of the spindle.”
The examiner has found (see pages 3 and 4 in the final
rejection) that these claim limitations are met by Poehlmann’s
spring 31. To support this finding, the examiner cites the
sentence in the above reproduced passage from the reference
stating that “[t]he lever 27 is bifurcated and receives a
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
6
latch 28 mounted on a cross pin 29 and urged by a spring 31
into a holding position.” (reply brief, page 1). According to
the examiner (see pages 4 and 5 in the answer), this sentence
describes lever 27, and thus the cams 36 carried by the lever,
as being urged by spring 31 into a holding position, with the
result that spring 31 meets the spring limitations in claims 5
and 6.
The appellant, on the other hand, submits (see pages 2
and 3 in the main brief and pages 1 and 2 in the reply brief)
that the sentence in question actually describes latch 28 as
being urged by spring 31 into a holding position, and that the
Poehlmann
device does not contain any spring, including spring 31, which
acts on the cam in the manner specified in claims 5 and 6.
A fair reading of the Poehlmann reference supports the
appellant’s position, and belies the examiner’s. The sentence
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
7
in question, even if read in a vacuum, indicates that the
element urged into a holding position by spring 31 is latch
28, not cam lever 27. The structural relationships between
spring 31, latch 28 and cam lever 27 shown in Figures 2
through 6 leave no doubt that such is the case, and that
spring 31 does not act on the cams 36 associated with lever 27
in the manner required by claims 5 and 6. Since the Poehlmann
device does not include any other spring meeting these claim
limitations, the examiner’s determination that Poehlmann
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of the invention recited in claims 5 and 6
is unsound.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 5 and 6 as being anticipated by
Poehlmann.
SUMMARY
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
8
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 and 6 is
reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD B. LAZARUS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jpm/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
9
JOHN V. STEWART
1308 HENRY BALCH DRIVE
ORLANDO, FL 32810