Ex Parte Phillips

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 2017

14191597 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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. 83393807 5059 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 14/191,597 02/27/2014 117396 7590 08/24/2017 FGTL/Burgess Law Office, PLLC P.O. Box 214320 Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320 Brian Phillips 08/24/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN PHILLIPS Appeal 2017-001764 Application 14/191,597 Technology Center 3600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-001764 Application 14/191,597 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “[a] parking brake assembly for use with a motor vehicle including first and second brake assemblies having a common cable.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal: 1. A parking brake system comprising: a cable; a movable member connected to a first brake assembly; a movable member connected to a second brake assembly, said cable connected to one of said movable members; and a conduit, said conduit connected to one of said movable members. THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sanford US 1,943,841 Jan 16, 1934 Krause US 3,472,096 Oct. 14, 1969 Pawelek DE 42 22 641 A1 May 5, 1994 1 Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 1.) 2 Appeal 2017-001764 Application 14/191,597 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1—6, 10, 11, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pawelek. (See Final Act. 2 4.) 2. Claims 10, 11, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sanford. (See Final Act. 4—5.) 3. Claims 1—9, 12—14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sanford and Krause. (See Final Act. 5-9.) ANALYSIS Anticipation The Examiner finds claims 1—6, 10, 11, 15, and 18 anticipated by one or both of Pawelek and Sanford. (See Final Act. 2—5.) Because Appellant presents no arguments directed to these rejections, they are summarily affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“[A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. March 2014) (“[T]he Board may summarily sustain any grounds of rejections not argued.”). Obviousness: Claims 1—6 and 20 The Examiner finds claims 1—6 and 20 obvious in view of Sanford and Krause. (See Final Act. 5—6, 8.) Because Appellant presents no arguments directed to these rejections, they are also summarily affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv); MPEP § 1205.02. 3 Appeal 2017-001764 Application 14/191,597 Obviousness: Claims 7—9,12—14,16,17, and 19 Claims 7—9, 12—14, 16, 17, and 19 are also rejected as obvious in view of Sanford and Krause. (See Final Act. 5—6.) Although Appellant argues these claims under different headings, the arguments are all based on one factual contention, that “[i]f the conduit 42 [of Sanford] were directly connected to the lever 32 of Sanford, any movement between the respective rear wheels 14, 18 would change the length of the conduit 42 and result in a variation of brake application,” an undesirable result that would cause one of skill in the art to not make the modification. (App. Br. 5—6.) The Examiner responds that in the modified arrangement, “excess conduit 42 would still exist between the two axles, and as such allow for continued flexing of the conduit during relative deflection between the axles.” (Ans. 2.) We conclude that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s analysis. Sanford’s Figure 2 is reproduced below: Sanford’s Figure 2 is “apartial diagrammatic perspective ” of a chassis. (Sanford 1:44—45.) The Examiner’s modification is to move the proximal end (relative to the actuator) of conduit 42 from bracket 43 to lever 32. The result is essentially 4 Appeal 2017-001764 Application 14/191,597 the same as the arrangement shown in Appellant’s Figure 1, where conduit 28 is connected at its distal end to a fixed member and at its proximal end to the brake lever. We conclude that Appellant has not provided sufficient technical reasoning or any evidence to support the argument that in operation the length of the conduit would experience a material change in length and thus cause one of skill in the art to not make the modification. As the Examiner observes, the conduit includes additional length so as to flex with the movement of the wheels (see Figure 2, above), and, not only is there is nothing to indicate that the conduit is of a material that would compress axially in operation, but Sanford specifically states that “the conduit does not vary in length.” (Sanford, p. 1,1. 86.) Because we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument, we sustain the Section 103 rejections of claims 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19. DECISION The rejections of claims 1—20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5