Ex Parte Pericevic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2014

12498110 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEKSANDAR PERICEVIC, STEPHAN PITZING, JOHANN BAUMGARTNER, STEFFEN GEISSLER, and ROBERT TRIMPE ____________ Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,1101 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8 and 16.2 Appeal Br. 2. An oral hearing was held on June 19, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 As indicated in the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 9–15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,110 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A commercial vehicle disc brake for use with a brake disc, the disc brake being mountable on a stationary brake carrier, the disc brake comprising: a sliding caliper that straddles the brake disc in use; two brake pads arranged in the caliper, the brake pads being moveable in opposite directions in order to contact the brake disc in braking operations; at least one fastening element having a guide spar, the fastening element being operatively configured for fastening the caliper to the stationary brake carrier; a brake application device having at least one adjusting spindle, the brake application device being operable to press the one of the two brake pads on an action-side of the disc brake facing the brake application device against the brake disc; an adjusting device by way of which a wear-induced change in an air play between the brake pads and the brake disc is compensatable; a restoring device operatively arranged on the action-side of the disc brake, the restoring device including a restoring element, the restoring device being operable to automatically bring the caliper into an initial position counter to a displacement direction during brake application; wherein the restoring device includes a supporting part, the supporting part being operatively configured to remain in position with respect to the stationary brake carrier during the braking-induced displacement of the caliper, the supporting part interacting with the restoring element, and further wherein the restoring element and the adjusting device are configured such that either the maximum possible moving force of the restoring element is lower than the minimum possible adjusting force of the adjusting device, or the minimum possible moving force of the restoring element is greater than the maximum possible adjusting force of the adjusting device. Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,110 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over GB ‘104 (GB 2 345 104 A, published June 28, 2000), Redenbarger (US 4,887,696, issued Dec. 19, 1989), and FR ‘485 (FR 2 807 485 A1, published Oct. 12, 2001). II. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over GB ‘104, Redenbarger, FR ‘485, and Hoffman (US 4,458,790, issued July 10, 1984). III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over GB ‘104, Redenbarger, FR ‘485, Hoffman, and Fujinami (US 4,781,273, issued Nov. 1, 1988). ANALYSIS Rejection I Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a restoring device operatively arranged on the action-side of the disc brake, the restoring device including a restoring element, the restoring device being operable to automatically bring the caliper into an initial position counter to a displacement direction during brake application.” Emphasis added. The Examiner found that GB ‘104 does not disclose the restoring device arranged as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Redenbarger discloses a disc brake including a restoring device 22, 23, operatively arranged on an action-side of the disc brake, and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disc brake of GB ‘104 to include a Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,110 4 restoring device located as taught by Redenbarger. Ans. 5–6 (citing Figs. 4, 5). Appellants contend that Redenbarger does not teach a restoring device on an “action side” of a brake. Appeal Br. 10–11. Rather, Appellants contend that Redenbarger’s rubber bushing is shown located “dead center between the two halves of the caliper in a hole in fixed brake mount 10.” Id. at 11. Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Appellants’ Specification discloses that “a restoring device 13 is provided on the action side, that is to say on the application side, preferably in the region of the locating bearing 10.” Spec. ¶ 47. The Specification also discloses that “the application-side brake pad 4 is pressed against the brake disc 3” (Id. ¶ 46), and that the brake application device (6) is operable to press application-side brake pad 4 on an action-side of disc brake 3 (Id. ¶ 44). As shown in Figure 1, also with reference to Figures 2 and 3 showing the location of restoring device 13 with respect to other elements including caliper 1 and fastening element 10 shown in Figure 1, restoring device 13 is arranged entirely on the action-side of disc brake 3. Consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we construe the claim limitation “arranged on the action-side of the disc brake” as “arranged entirely on the action-side.” Figures 3 and 4 of Redenbarger show a portion of a brake disc assembly including a caliper 25 having housing portions 26, 27 located on opposite sides of disc brake 9; backing plates 44, 49 and associated friction elements 45, 48; and movable piston 39 connected to back plate 44. See also col. 2, ll. 31–35, col. 2, l. 63–col. 3, l. 4. In this arrangement, piston 39 is located on the action-side of disc brake 9. Elastomeric bushing 22 is not Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,110 5 located entirely on the action-side of disc brake 9. Instead, bushing 22 and metal cylinder 23 are located entirely within the region defined by backing plate 44 and friction element 48. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the disclosure in Redenbarger relied on by the Examiner does not teach or suggest “a restoring device operatively arranged on the action-side of the disc brake,” as required by claim 1. In addition, the Examiner did not identify any disclosure in Redenbarger showing that bushing 22 and metal cylinder 23, which are provided on leg member 12, could be provided entirely on the action-side of disc brake 9 in the brake assembly. Nor has the Examiner provided evidence to show that bushing 22 and metal cylinder 23, if somehow incorporated into GB ‘104’s brake assembly based on the location of bearings 10, 11 (see Ans. 11), would necessarily “[be] operable to automatically bring the caliper into an initial position counter to a displacement direction during brake application,” as called for in claim 1. As such, the rejection relies on speculation. Thus, we find that the Examiner has not articulated an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to modify GB ‘104 to include this claimed feature. The Examiner’s reliance on FR ‘485 regarding the limitations recited in the final “wherein” clause of claim 1 (Ans. 6–7) do not cure the deficiencies of the combination of GB ‘104 and Redenbarger discussed above. In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2 and 3. Appeal 2012-005666 Application 12/498,110 6 Rejections II and III The rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 (Ans. 7–9) and claim 6 (id. at 9) rely on the same unsupported findings and reasoning advanced for the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons as those discussed for claim 1. DECISION The rejections of claims 1–8 and 16 are REVERSED. REVERSED mls