Ex Parte Jones et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 19, 2017

13783455 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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. 13/783,455 03/04/2013 Lebree Jones MERIT 120038 PUS 1445 113600 7590 10/23/2017 Rrnnks; Kiisdiman Pf / Meritor EXAMINER Twenty Second Floor HSIAO, JAMES K 1000 Town Center Southfield, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2017 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): docketing @brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEBREE JONES and PETER MOSS (Applicant: ArvinMeritor Technology, LLC) Appeal 2017-003920 Application 13/783,455 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2017-003920 Application 13/783,455 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to “a brake assembly having a brake wing.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A brake assembly comprising: a camshaft housing configured to receive a camshaft for actuating a brake pad assembly; and a brake wing that includes: a panel having a first surface, a second surface, and a camshaft housing hole that extends from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the camshaft housing hole receives the camshaft housing; a first flange that extends from the panel and has a pair of mounting holes; a second flange that extends from the panel and from the first flange such that the second flange is not coplanar with the first flange; and a third flange that extends from the panel and at an angle from the second flange such that the first flange and the second flange are not coplanar with the third flange; wherein the first, second, and third flanges extend in a direction that faces away from the second surface and the second flange extends from the first flange to the third flange. Reference The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Urban US 4,907,678 Mar. 13, 1990 2 Appeal 2017-003920 Application 13/783,455 Rejection Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Urban. Final Act. 2—5. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds: Urban discloses a camshaft housing (36) capable of receiving a camshaft (35) for actuating a brake pad assembly; and a brake wing (41) that includes: a panel having a first surface (fig 2), a second surface (fig 3), and a camshaft housing hole (43) that extends from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the camshaft housing hole receives the camshaft housing (36); a first flange (46) that extends from the panel and has a pair of mounting holes (at least 48 and 49); and a second flange (45) that extends from the panel and the first flange such that the second flange is not coplanar with the first flange (fig 3); a third flange (42) that extends from the panel and at an angle from the second flange (figs 2 and 3) such that the first flange and the second flange are not coplanar with the third flange (figs 2 and 3); and wherein the first, second, and third flanges extend in a direction that faces away from the second surface and the second flange extends from the first flange to the third flange (figs 2 and 3). Final Act. 2—3. Appellants contend Urban fails to disclose a brake wing including a panel and first, second, and third flanges, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, the Examiner fails to identify the component in the mounting bracket of Urban corresponding to the claimed “panel.” App. Br. 8. Appellants argue based on the Examiner’s findings Urban fails to disclose the claimed “panel” or, alternatively, the claimed “third flange.” App. Br. 8—11. We agree. 3 Appeal 2017-003920 Application 13/783,455 Urban is directed to a drum-type brake that includes a mounting bracket for carrying a power unit such as an air chamber device. Urban 3:57—61. Urban discloses the mounting bracket “has a first leg 42 that is aperture at 43 so as to pass the tubular member 36” (Urban 3:61—64) — e.g., a camshaft (see Urban 3:47—51). We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 7, 8) that the Examiner fails to explicitly identify any component of Urban’s mounting bracket as corresponding to the claimed “panel” (see Final Act. 2— 3; Ans. 2—3, 6—8).1 Because Examiner finds the aperture 43 corresponds to the claimed “camshaft housing hole” and because claim 1 requires the camshaft housing hole to be included in the panel, we find the Examiner implicitly relies on Urban’s first leg 42 as disclosing the claimed “panel.” Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 8 (“Examiner stated element 43 as the camshaft hole as seen in figure 2 because Urban lists element 43 as an aperture in the bracket and the cam shaft 35/36 goes through said aperture.”). Additionally, the Examiner finds Urban’s first leg 42 discloses the claimed “third flange.” Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner’s findings fail to explain how Urban’s first leg 42 discloses both the “panel” and the “third flange.” As such, the Examiner’s findings are insufficient to show Urban discloses every element of claim 1, arranged as claimed. See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 1 The Examiner provides annotated Figures in the Examiner’s Answer and, in lieu of any substantive explanation, relies on the annotations to respond to Appellants’ arguments. See Ans. 6—8. However, the Examiner’s annotations are illegible and, therefore, provide little evidentiary value. 4 Appeal 2017-003920 Application 13/783,455 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1; independent claim 13 which recites similar limitations; and claims 2—12 and 14—20, which depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). REVERSED 5