Ex Parte Hirose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 2017

13039456 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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. 13/039,456 03/03/2011 Kazuyuki HIROSE SN-US115016 1947 22919 7590 06/26/2017 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP David Tarnoff 1233 20TH STREET, NW Suite 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680 EXAMINER COLLINS, DANIEL S. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2017 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): mailpto @ giplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUYUKI HIROSE and SHINICHI TAKIZAWA Appeal 2015-003160 Application 13/039,456 Technology Center 3700 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 4 and 6—10. An oral hearing was conducted on June 20, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-003160 Application 13/039,456 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a hydraulic brake actuation device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A hydraulic brake actuation device comprising: a housing including a master cylinder, the housing including a pair of opposed side walls that defines a recess; a master piston slidably disposed in the master cylinder; a push rod coupled to the master piston; an actuation lever pivotally attached to the housing; a contact member housed in the recess and contacting the actuation lever, the contact member also contacting the push rod that pushes the master piston; and a support member configured and arranged to guide the contact member, the support member including two separate support member pieces that are separate from the housing, the two support member pieces being attached to the opposed side walls of the housing such that the support member pieces are separated from each other across the recess. REJECTION Claims 1^4 and 6—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tetsuka (U.S. 2007/0284203 Al, pub. Dec. 13, 2007).1 OPINION In Tetsuka when plates 93 and 92 go into the opening defined by sidewalls 74 there does not appear to be any way they can reasonably be considered “separated from each other across the recess.” See Final Act. 3— 4; Reply Br. 4; Tetsuka Fig. 5. The Examiner’s analysis on this point is that plates 93 and 92 may reasonably be considered “separated” and may also 1 The rejection statement includes claim 12. Final Act. 3,5. However, claim 12 is not pending. Appeal Br. 6. 2 Appeal 2015-003160 Application 13/039,456 reasonably be considered “attached across the recess.” Ans. 7 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner is correct on these two points, the Examiner’s analysis fails to address the actual claim language and fails to consider the “separated from each other across the recess” limitation as a whole. “[Ajcross the recess” defines how the plates are “separated,” as opposed to how they are “attached.” Being both “separated” and “attached across the recess” does not necessarily make plates 93 and 92 “separated from each other across the recess.” Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to show that Tetsuka satisfies this limitation. This shortcoming defeats the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. REVERSED 3