Ex Parte TakachiDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 13, 200610117026 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2006) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS Ex p HI Appeal No. 2006-1452 Application No. 10/117,026 Technology Center 3600 ________ Before OWENS, BAHR and HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the examiner's final rejecti -24 and 51, all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 25- 50 have been canceled. We reverse. ____________ AND INTERFERENCES ____________ arte TAKESHI TAKAC ____________ ____________ ON BRIEF ____ DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on of claims 1 ycle shift control device. Claims 1 and 51 are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of these claims can be found he examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: The appellant seeks our review of the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 and 51 under plete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed September 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed December 21, 2005) for the appellant's sequence of our review, we make the de teaches a bicycle shift control device including all of the elements of the claim. (Final BACKGROUND The appellant's invention relates to a bic in the appendix to the appellant’s brief. T Yamane 5,921,139 Jul. 13, 1999 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamane. Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed November 10, 2005) for the examiner's com arguments. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a con terminations that follow. It is our view that, after consideration of the record before us, Yamane does not anticipate the claimed invention. In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that Yamane ice 60 the appellant’s specif er ice structured so that tates, it causes rotation of the transmission control member for a t (17) to the left towa p. 5). The ap Office Action, p. 3).1 The examiner has also determined that the structure of Yamane’s device is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claim. (Final Off Action, p. 3). Regarding claim 51, the examiner has determined that the gear portion 1 and the second gear portion 171 of Yamane correspond to the structure in ication for allowing the operating member to rotate the transmission control member for a selected rotational distance without the second position setting memb moving toward the disengagement position. (Final Office Action, p. 8). The appellant contends that Yamane fails to disclose a dev when operating member (16) ro selected rotational distance without moving intermediate elemen rd the disengagement position. (Appellant’s Brief, pellant explains, Since drive surfaces (160a) of operating member (16) always press against driven surfaces (171a) of intermediate element (17) when operating member (16) rotates in the wire winding direction shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D), operating member (16) and intermediate element (17) always rotate together during that time. Since takeup member (18) always moves as a unit with intermediate element (17), and since intermediate element (17) always rotates together with operating member (16) when operating member (16) rotates as shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D), all three elements (16, 17, 18) rotate together during the movements shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D). There is never a time r in his answer to the Appellant’s Brief merely incorporated by reference the Appellant’s arguments in the final rejection on March 14, 2005. The Examiner is t 2005) (“If there is a complete and thorough development of the issues at the possible to save time in preparing the examiner’s answer required by 37 CFR ction from a prior Office action and then pasting the copied rejection into the 1 The Examine examiner’s response to the admonished not to rely on such incorporation by reference in future answers. See M.P.E.P. § 1207.02 (Rev. 3 Augus time of final rejection, it is 41.39 by copying a reje answer. An examiner’s answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully restating the point relied on in the answer.”) (emphasis added) right side of Figs. oves axially to the left toward the disengagement position. Since cam surfaces ver the left (17) e as soon as a user rotates operating member (16). There is no space (S) provided in the device of Yamane, as in the appellant’s invention, that would allow operating member (16) to rotate during the operation shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D) that takeup member (18) rotates without a corresponding rotation of intermediate element (17). Furthermore, as operating member (16), intermediate element (17) and takeup member (18) rotate relative to fixed member (15), cam surfaces (170b) and (151b) slide relative to each other as shown in the 6(B)-6(D), and intermediate element (17) m (170b) of intermediate element (17) always press against cam surfaces (151b) of fixed member (15), there is never a time during operation shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D) when operating member (16) rotates without moving intermediate element (17) to the left toward the disengagement position. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 5). Similarly, with respect to the operation of the device of Yamane in the wire unwinding direction, as shown in Figs. 7(A)-7(D), the appellant contends, “There is ne a time during the operation shown in Figs. 7(B)-7(D) (Fig. 7(A) shows the idle state) when operating member (16) rotates without moving intermediate element (17) to toward the disengagement position.” (Appellant’s Brief, p. 5). We agree with the appellant’s position. The structure of the Yamane device is not configured to allow rotation of operating member (16) to rotate the transmission control member (18) for a selected rotational distance without moving intermediate element toward the disengagement position. The teeth on the second gear portion (171) of the intermediate element (17) of Yamane are structured so that their surfaces engage with th surfaces of the teeth on gear portion (160) of operating member (16) ane. As shown, once the gears g f do not move over t d by r (16), the gear portion (160) of operating member (16) engages second gear portion (171) of intermediate element (17) causing immediate rotation thereof, which in turn causes on of takeup member (18) by virtue of its c find that Yamane fails to disclose a bicycle shift control device “wherein the first coupling member and the second coupling member are structured so that rotation of the operating member rotates the transmission control member for a selected rotational distance without moving the second position setting member toward the disengagement position,” as recited in claim 1. We also find that Yamane fails to disclose any structure that would perform the recited function of “allowing the operating member to rotate the transmission control member for a selected rotational distance without the second transmission control member (18) for a selected rotation distance without moving intermediate element (17) towards the disengagement position. This is evident from Figures 6A-6D and 7A-7D of Yam move from an idle state (shown in Figures 6A and 7A) to a state in which operatin member (16) is being rotated, the surface (171a in Figure 6B, 171b in Figure 7B) of second gear portion (171) engages the surface (160a in Figure 6B, 160b in Figure 7B) o gear portion (160) and second gear portion (171) immediately starts to move to the left toward the disengagement position (shown in Figures 6B and 7B). The device of Yamane is also structured so that “intermediate element 17 is in constant engagement with the takeup member 18.” (Yamane, col. 6, lines 18-20). Further, the tooth measurement (171h) of the second gear portion (171) is sized so that “the gear teeth of the second gear portion 171 of the intermediate element he teeth of the gear portion 160 of the operating element 16 and remain capture the same mating teeth. …” (Yamane, col. 6, lines 33-36) (emphasis added). As such, when the user rotates operating membe immediate rotati onstant engagement with intermediate element (17). We osition setting member moving toward the disengagement position,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 51. With regard rejections rely upo depende claim 1, we also reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims. To summariz r to reje 1 is reversed. ) TERRY J. OWENS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) LINDA E. HORNER ) Administrative Patent Judge ) p 5 to remaining rejected dependent claims 2-24, because these claim n the underlying rejection of in nt CONCLUSION e, the decision of the examine ct claims 1-24 and 5 REVERSED ELAND LAW OFFICE .O. BOX 69 LAMATH RIVER, CA 96050-0069 LEH/jrg D P K Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation