Ex Parte Thomas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

11405758 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/405,758 04/18/2006 Wendell A. Thomas 8875/4 5013
7590 09/16/2010
CARDINAL LAW GROUP
Suite 2000
1603 Orrington Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, MATTHEW A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WENDELL A. THOMAS
____________

Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wendell A. Thomas (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19, which is the sole
pending claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is a handlebar extension for a bicycle.
Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 19, the sole claim on appeal, is reproduced
below.
19. A handlebar extension for a bike handlebar, comprising:
a handlebar connector including a compressible locking
portion;
a grip portion rotatably connected to the handlebar
connector; wherein the compressible locking portion is inserted
within an opening in the handlebar, and wherein the connector
is rotated to compress the compressible locking portion within
the handlebar opening
wherein the grip portion connects to the handlebar
connector with a rope extending through a head of an eye-bolt,
and wherein the rope extends through a hole in a cap mounted
to a handle tube, wherein the handle tube surrounds a first
fitting and a second fitting, the first fitting attached to a first end
of the rope and the second fitting attached to a second end of
the rope.
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

3
THE REJECTION
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Levy (U.S. Patent 5,683,200,
issued November 4, 1997).
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Does Levy disclose that the rope connecting the grip portion to the
handlebar connector “extends through a hole in a cap mounted to a handle
tube, wherein the handle tube surrounds a first fitting and a second fitting,
the first fitting attached to a first end of the rope and the second fitting
attached to a second end of the rope”?
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner found that Levy discloses a handlebar extension for
a bike handlebar, comprising: a handlebar connector including a
compressible locking portion, a grip portion rotatably connected
via a rope to the handlebar connector, wherein the compressible
locking portion is inserted within an opening in the handlebar,
wherein the connector is rotated to compress the compressible
locking portion within the handlebar opening, and wherein the grip
portion connects to the handlebar connector with a rope extending
through a head of an eye-bolt. Ans. 3.
2. Appellant does not dispute these findings of the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

4
3. Levy discloses a tube 10 having an anchor 11 resting within the
tube 10 at a desired maximal depth. The anchor 11 includes an
outer piece 20, which is held fixed within the tube 10 by a snap
ring 25. The snap ring 25 exerts a constant radial force on the
outer piece 20, disallowing vibration or relaxation of the plastic
over time to affect the positioning of the outer piece 20 along the
axis of the tube 10. Levy, col. 4, ll. 37-44; fig. 1.
4. Levy further discloses an expansion bolt 32 disposed within a shaft
5 and having a cable 30, such as a nylon cord, attached at one end
to the expansion bolt and attached at the other end to an inner piece
22 of the anchor 11. Levy, col. 2, ll. 19-21; id. at col. 4, ll. 44-45;
fig. 1.
5. The length of the cable 30 is such that the anchor 11 prevents the
shaft 5 from being removed from tube 10. Levy, col. 4, ll. 49-50;
id. at col. 5, ll. 25-27; fig. 3.
6. The tube 10 of Levy is shown extending from near the top of the
assembly to the bottom of the assembly. Levy shows a break in
the drawing of tube 10 near the center of the assembly, which
indicates that a portion of the middle of the tube 10 is not shown.
The cross-hatching marking on both the top and bottom portions of
the tube 10 are the same, further confirming that the top and
bottom portions are portions of the same tube 10. Levy, figs. 1, 3.
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

5
7. Levy’s expansion bolt 32 with eye bolt opening, cable 30, and
outer piece 20 and inner piece 22 of anchor 11 are disposed within
tube 10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings that Levy
discloses a handlebar connector, including a compressible locking portion,
and a grip portion rotatably connected to the handlebar connector, wherein
the compressible locking portion is inserted within an opening in the
handlebar, wherein the connector is rotated to compress the compressible
locking portion within the handlebar opening, and wherein the grip portion
connects to the handlebar connector with a rope extending through a head of
an eye-bolt (Facts 1, 2). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding
that Levy’s handle tube (10) surrounds a first fitting (Levy’s eye-bolt and
knot) and a second fitting (the opening in Levy’s inner member 22 and knot)
because the structures identified by the Examiner as the first fitting and the
second fitting “are not surrounded by the handle tube 10, but are surrounded
by different structures.” Br. 10.
We find that Figures 1 and 3 of Levy show a tube 10 that extends
from near the top of the assembly to the bottom of the assembly and that the
break in the tube shown in the drawing indicates that a middle portion of the
tube is not shown (Fact 6). This fact is further confirmed by looking to the
description provided in Levy, which provides that the outer piece 20 of
anchor 11 is held fixed within the tube 10 by a snap ring 25 (Fact 3).
Further, Levy shows and describes that the eye bolt opening and knot
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

6
attached to expansion bolt 32 are disposed within the same tube 10 as anchor
11 (Facts 4-6). As such, we do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred in finding that the first and second fittings of Levy are surrounded by
the handle tube 10.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Levy’s cap (20) is mounted to a handle tube (10). Br. 10. Levy discloses
that the outer piece 20 of anchor 11 is held fixed within tube 10 by a snap
ring 25 (Fact 3). As such, we do not agree that the Examiner erred in
finding that Levy’s cap is mounted to the handle tube.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding that Levy’s outer
piece 20 is the claimed cap and is also part of the handlebar connector. Br.
12. Levy’s shaft 5 is held within and thus connected to tube 10 via Levy’s
cable 30, which connects the expansion bolt 32 with the inner piece 22 of the
anchor 11 (Facts 4, 5). While the outer piece 20 of Levy’s anchor 11 plays a
role in retaining the shaft 5 within the tube 10 when the shaft 5 is moved
upwards so that the cable is in tension, as shown in Figure 3, the outer piece
20 is a separate part of the assembly from the parts (32, 30, and 22) used to
connect the shaft 5 to the tube 10, and thus we do not find that the Examiner
erred in finding that Levy’s outer piece 20 is the claimed “cap.”
CONCLUSION
Levy discloses that the rope connecting the grip portion to the
handlebar connector “extends through a hole in a cap mounted to a handle
tube, wherein the handle tube surrounds a first fitting and a second fitting,
Appeal 2010-001423
Application 11/405,758

7
the first fitting attached to a first end of the rope and the second fitting
attached to a second end of the rope.”
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 19 is AFFIRMED.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls

CARDINAL LAW GROUP
SUITE 2000
1603 ORRINGTON AVENUE
EVANSTON, IL 60201