Ex Parte Nakakura

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 2017

13088729 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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. 13/088,729 04/18/2011 Masahiro Nakakura SIC-11-006 9090 29863 7590 06/01/2017 DELAND LAW OFFICE P.O. BOX 69 KLAMATH RIVER, CA 96050-0069 EXAMINER LANE, NICHOLAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): bdeland 1992 @gmail.com jdeland @ sisqtel.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASAHIRO NAKAKURA Appeal 2017-000372 Application 13/088,729 Technology Center 3600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, 22, 23, and 25 through 33. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a disk brake caliper for a bicycle. See Abstract of Appellant’s Specification. Appeal 2017-000372 Application 13/088,729 Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A disk brake apparatus for a bicycle comprising: a caliper housing structured to be attached to a bicycle; a first brake pad coupled to the caliper housing for movement between a release position and a braking position; a second brake pad coupled to the caliper housing and arranged facing the first brake pad; a drive shaft coupled to the caliper housing, wherein the drive shaft rotates around a drive shaft axis to move the first brake pad in an axial direction from the release position towards the braking position; an actuating member that rotates to communicate rotational force to the drive shaft to cause the drive shaft to move the first brake pad from the release position towards the braking position; a drive coupling member coupled to the drive shaft to communicate rotational force from the actuating member to the drive shaft; an adjusting member that adjusts a position of the drive coupling member relative to the actuating member; and a biasing mechanism that biases the actuating member relative to the caliper housing; wherein the actuating member, the drive coupling member, and the adjusting member move together when the actuating member rotates to communicate rotational force to the drive shaft; wherein the actuating member can remain stationary when the adjusting member adjusts the position of the drive coupling member relative to the actuating member; wherein the actuating member can be removed from the drive shaft while leaving the drive coupling member connected to the drive shaft; and 2 Appeal 2017-000372 Application 13/088,729 wherein the adjusting member is unconstrained in the direction of the drive shaft axis by the drive coupling member when the drive coupling member is in its adjusted position. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20, 22, 23, and 25 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirimoto (US RE42,635 E; iss. Aug. 23, 2011), Redenbarger (US 5,020,643; iss. June 4, 1991), and Sanford (US 1,774,527; iss. Sept. 2, 1930). Answer 2, Final Act. 2-9.1 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the actuating member can be removed from the drive shaft, leaving the coupling member connected to the drive shaft? The Examiner finds Sanford’s statement “[c]am 28 may, if desired, be integral with a camshaft 30” reasonably infers that an embodiment exists in which the cam is separate from the cam shaft. Answer 3^4 (citing Sanford Col. 1, line 46-49). Further, the Examiner finds the broadest reasonable 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed March 2, 2016; Reply Br., filed September 30, 2016; the Final Office Action, mailed September 24, 2015; and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on September 8, 2016. 3 Appeal 2017-000372 Application 13/088,729 interpretation of the limitation “the actuating member can be removed” includes removing the actuating member by cutting it off. Answer 4—5. We have reviewed the teachings relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection and disagree with the Examiner’s findings. While the cited passage of Sanford may suggest that the cam is not integral with the shaft, we do not find this teaches that the cam can be removed from the drive shaft while leaving the coupling member connected to the drive shaft as recited in independent claim 1. Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the claim can be interpreted to include removing by cutting the cam-camshaft assembly. We consider this to be an unreasonable interpretation as the Examiner has not shown that it is consistent with Appellant’s Specification or the common meaning in the art. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 through 20, 22, 23, and 25 through 33 depend upon claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20, 22, 23, and 25 through 33. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20, 22, 23, and 25 through 33 under § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4