Bendix Spicer Foundation Brake LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019004547 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
14/844,641 09/03/2015 Daniel E. Banks IP-BSFB-2014-8-US-1 1048
58332 7590 10/02/2020
BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS, LLC
901 CLEVELAND STREET
ELYRIA, OH 44035
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
EUGENE.CLAIR@BENDIX.COM
cheryl.greenly@bendix.com
samantha.thomas@bendix.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL E. BANKS, THOMAS L. RUNELS,
THOMAS E. LYON, and JEFFREY L. JONES
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 17. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a brake actuator apparatus for an air disc
brake of a vehicle air braking system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A brake actuator apparatus for an air disc brake of a
vehicle air braking system, the brake actuator apparatus
comprising:
a faceplate having a major side surface;
a bridge housing spaced apart from the faceplate and
having (i) a first housing end portion, (ii) a second housing end
portion distal from the first housing end portion, (iii) a vehicle
outboard surface extending between the first and second housing
end portions, and (iv) a vehicle inboard surface extending
between the first and second housing end portions;
a first tappet having a longitudinal central axis and
disposed at the first housing end portion of the bridge housing
and extending between the vehicle outboard surface and the
vehicle inboard surface, wherein the first tappet comprises
double helix threads;

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated
June 12, 2018 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated March 21, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated November 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”)
and Reply Brief dated May 7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bendix Spicer
Foundation Brake LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

3
a second tappet having a longitudinal central axis and
disposed at the second housing end portion of the bridge housing
and extending between the vehicle outboard surface and the
vehicle inboard surface, wherein the second tappet comprises
double helix threads;
a gear train disposed on the vehicle outboard surface of the
bridge housing and including five gear wheels operatively
coupled to the first and second tappets, wherein (i) a first gear
wheel of the five gear wheels has a longitudinal central axis
which is coincident with the longitudinal central axis of the first
tappet, (ii) a second gear wheel of the five gear wheels has a
longitudinal central axis which is coincident with the
longitudinal central axis of the second tappet, (iii) a third gear
wheel of the five gear wheels disposed between the first and
second gear wheels and functioning as a center gear wheel, (iv)
a fourth gear wheel of the five gear wheels is meshingly engaged
between the first and third gear wheels and functioning as an
idler gear wheel between the first and third gear wheels, and (v)
a fifth gear wheel of the five gear wheels is meshingly engaged
between the second and third gear wheels and functioning as an
idler gear wheel between the second and third gear wheels;
a first coil spring having a longitudinal central axis which
is coincident with a longitudinal central axis of the fourth gear
wheel and being compressed between the major side surface of
the faceplate and the vehicle outboard surface of the bridge
housing; and
a second coil spring having a longitudinal central axis
which is coincident with a longitudinal central axis of the fifth
gear wheel and being compressed between the major side surface
of the faceplate and the vehicle outboard surface of the bridge
housing;
wherein after a service brake application, the first and
second coil springs provide a dual return springs configuration
which returns the bridge housing with a more balanced return
pressure versus a single return spring configuration.

Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sendoykas US 5,020,418 June 4, 1991
Banks US 7,152,722 B1 Dec. 26, 2006
WO ’647 WO 2014/021647 Al Feb. 6, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Banks, WO ’647, and Sendoykas. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 17 as a group. Appeal
Br. 7–10. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and
claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Banks and
WO ’647 disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 except for the limitations
reciting first and second tappets which comprise “double helix threads.”
Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 9–11. For these missing limitations, the Examiner finds
that Sendoykas discloses double helix threads. Final Act. 5 (citing
Sendoykas, 5:43). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art “to have modified the tappets of [Banks],
as modified, to have included a double helix thread, as taught by Sendoykas,
in order to provide a means of achieving a certain level of linear
displacement with a given revolution.” Final Act. 5, 8 (it would have been
obvious “to have modified the threaded rotary-to-linear arrangement of
Banks, as modified, to have included a double helix threaded arrangement to
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

5
achieve a desired linear movement of one element in response to a given
rotation of another element depending on the particular application”);
Ans. 9–10. The Examiner also reasons that it is known in the art that
“double helix threaded arrangements have the advantage of providing a
more aggressive thread pitch to reduce the number of rotations needed for
advancement.” Final Act. 8–9 (citing US Patent Application 2011/0204093
to Lee, see ¶ 57 (“A double thread, or double helix, is used in this
embodiment and can be preferable over a single helix to allow a more
aggressive thread pitch to reduce the number of rotations needed to penetrate
the cork. A double helix is also preferable as it allows for the threads of the
upper assembly and lower assembly to mate together and form a continuous
thread regardless either of the two possible rotational orientations, 180°
apart based on a slot, of the respective mating interlock geometry.”);
Ans. 9–10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for three
reasons. First, Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify Banks
in light of Sendoykas. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 8–12. According to
Appellant, Banks discloses “a complete and adequate disc brake actuator for
its intended purpose in a vehicle air braking system” and “does not disclose
any other deficiencies of the brake actuator assembly.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues that, because “the disclosed disc brake actuator of [Banks]
is complete and adequate, there is no motivation or suggestion in [Banks]
itself to modify the disc brake actuator to include a double helix thread
arrangement on its tappets,” and “[m]odifying the [Banks] tappets to include
a double helix thread ‘in order to provide a means of achieving a certain
level of linear displacement with a given revolution’ as stated by the
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

6
Examiner solves a problem that neither the [Banks] nor the Sendoykas
reference recites.” Id.; Reply Br. 10–11.
Second, Appellant argues that “to support a claim that the
modification was obvious, one must also have a reasonable expectation of
success.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing MPEP 2143.02). According to Appellant,
because “one of the objects of including the double helix threads in the
present application is to allow for smaller diameter tappets, one would not
look to add a feature from a large tool designed to maintain its position for
long periods of time in order to reduce size of a brake actuator tappet.” Id.
(citing Sendoykas, 1:18–32).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because an express teaching
or motivation in Banks or Sendoykas is not required; instead, the Examiner
need only articulate a reason to combine the references with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Appellant does not address
the Examiner’s two rationales for combining Banks and Sendoykas –– to
provide “a means of achieving a certain level of linear displacement with a
given revolution” and it is well known that “double helix threaded
arrangements have the advantage of providing a more aggressive thread
pitch to reduce the number of rotations needed for advancement” –– or show
that they lack a rational underpinning. Final Act. 5, 8–9; Ans. 9–10. We
also find persuasive the Examiner’s explanation that “it would have been
obvious to try a double helix thread arrangement since it is one option
selected from a finite number of identified (i.e. single or double helix thread
arrangements), predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
success to provide rotary to linear motion conversion.” Ans. 10; KSR, 550
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

7
U.S. at 421 (stating “[w]hen there is a design need . . . to solve a problem
and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp” and a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton”). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s
reasoning for combining Banks and Sendoykas and, thus, does not identify
error.
Third, Appellant argues that Sendoykas is non-analogous prior art.
Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, while “Sendoykas does disclose a
double helix thread on a piston rod of a power cylinder that is holding a
workpiece in place, nowhere does Sendoykas disclose or even remotely
suggest a double helix thread on a tappet of a disc brake actuator of a
commercial vehicle air braking system,” and “one skilled in the art of disc
brake assemblies would not have looked in the field of power cylinders that
simply hold a workpiece in place to make any modification to an air disc
brake actuator.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing the Declaration of Daniel Banks as
submitted February 8, 2018). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
To qualify as prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must
be “analogous art,” i.e., it must satisfy one of the following conditions: (1)
the reference must be from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor; or (2)
the reference must be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d
1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the Examiner determines that Sendoykas
meets the second condition, yet Appellant does not address the second
condition.
Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

8
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that “the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e. the need to
achieve a desired amount of linear movement per revolution),” and
the need to achieve a desired amount of linear movement per
revolution is a problem faced by both the claimed invention and
the reference regardless of whether the linear movement per
revolution is needed often (e.g. during multiple braking
operations) or only after long lapses of time (e.g. during
occasional adjustments to a position that may be held for long
periods of time).
Ans. 11. We find persuasive the Examiner’s explanation that “[v]ehicle
manufacturers often look for means to reduce the overall size of vehicles to
help improve fuel economy,” and, contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
“smaller diameter tappets capable of producing the needed linear
displacement per revolution would be a benefit in the environment of a
brake actuator apparatus in a vehicle.” Id.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2,
4, 6, 7, and 17 fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 17 is
AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
17
103 Banks, WO ’647,
Sendoykas
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
17

Appeal 2019-004547
Application 14/844,641

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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