Ex Parte Takeda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2007

10145933 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2007)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAZUHIRO TAKEDA
____________

Appeal 2006-2853
Application 10/145,933
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 23, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, STUART S. LEVY, and LINDA E. HORNER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-42, which are all
of the pending claims. In the Examiner’s Answer the rejection is withdrawn
as to claims 7-9, 11, 12, 14-21, 26-33 and 35-42 (Answer 2).
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims an apparatus for determining when to shift a
bicycle chain from one sprocket to another. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2006-2853
Application 10/145,933

2
1. An apparatus for determining when to shift a bicycle chain from a
first sprocket having a first number of teeth to a second sprocket having a
second number of teeth, comprising:

a memory for storing a reference value; and

a processor that determines a shift value corresponding to a shift
speed for shifting the chain from the first sprocket to the second sprocket by
multiplying the reference value by one of the first number of teeth and the
second number of teeth and dividing by the other one of the first number of
teeth and the second number of teeth.

THE REFERENCE
Browning US 5,261,858 Nov. 16, 1993
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 22-25 and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Browning.1
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection.
The portion of Browning relied upon by the Examiner is column 9,
line 15 to column 10, line 26 (Answer 3). In that portion of Browning, a
bicycle’s “true gear” is obtained from a table showing, for each gear, either
the number of crank signals generated during 5 hub signals (Table 5), or an
index based upon that number of crank signals (Table 6). The crank signals
are obtained from a crank sensor (120) in a front gear assembly (170), and
the hub signals are obtained from a hub sensor (130) in a rear gear assembly
(180) (Browning, col. 4, ll. 6-31; fig. 1B). The crank sensor generates one
signal per 1/8 revolution of the crank, and the hub sensor generates 1 signal

1 The rejection of claim 6 is not maintained in the Examiner’s Answer (p. 3).
Consequently, we consider the rejection of that claim to be withdrawn.
Appeal 2006-2853
Application 10/145,933

3
per revolution of the hub (Browning, col. 9, ll. 18-21). The number of crank
signals generated during 5 hub signals in Table 5 is calculated from the
formula: (5 * # of rear teeth/# of front teeth) * 8 (Browning, col. 9, ll. 28-
34).
The Examiner argues (Answer 4):
The limitations of the claims only requires [sic] a processor that
determines a shift value corresponding to a shift speed, which is
determined by multiplying the reference value by one of the first
number of teeth and the second number of teeth and dividing by the
other one of the first number of teeth and the second number of teeth.
The Browning reference meets the limitations of the claims because
the first number of teeth correspond to the rear number of teeth, and
the second number of teeth correspond to the front number of teeth.

The first and second sprockets in the body of the Appellant’s claim 1
are the sprockets in the preamble, i.e., a first sprocket having a first number
of teeth and the second sprocket having a second number of teeth. The shift
recited in that claim is from the first sprocket to the second sprocket. Such a
shift also is recited in the Appellant’s other independent claim (22). In
contrast, the front and rear teeth in Browning are teeth on, respectively, a
crank sprocket and rear wheel sprocket (fig. 1B). There is no shift from one
of those sprockets to the other. Thus, the Examiner’s argument that “[t]he
Browning reference meets the limitations of the claims because the first
number of teeth correspond to the rear number of teeth, and the second
number of teeth correspond to the front number of teeth” (Answer 4) is
incorrect.
Appeal 2006-2853
Application 10/145,933

4
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 10, 13, 22-25 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Browning is reversed.
REVERSED

hh

DELAND LAW OFFICE
P.O. BOX 69
KLAMATH RIVER, CA 96050-0069