Ex Parte Felt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

12766212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

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.
12/766,212 04/23/2010 James Michael Felt DUEFR-069A 1973
7663 7590 03/10/2016
STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
EXAMINER
QUINN, RICHALE LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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 JAMES MICHAEL FELT
_____________
Appeal 2014–001094
Application 12/766,2121
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James Michael Felt (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims
1–4 and 6–11 as unpatentable over Broersma (US 4,653,123, iss. Mar. 31,
1987) and Gentes (US 4,903,350, iss. Feb. 27, 1990); and of claim 13 as
unpatentable over Broersma, Gentes, and Forman (US 5,467,906, iss. Nov.
21, 1995).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Felt Racing, LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 5 and 12 are canceled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2014–001094
Application 12/766,212

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the disputed limitation
emphasized.
1. An aerodynamic bicycle helmet for decreasing coefficient of
drag when a head of a rider is in a down position, the helmet
comprising:
a cushion with a concave cavity for receiving the head of
the rider;
a strap attached to the cushion for maintaining the
cushion on the head of rider in the event of a crash;
an exterior shell disposed over the cushion, the exterior
shell having a leading portion and a tail portion, the leading
portion having a parabolic configuration, the parabolic leading
portion positioned on a top portion of the head of the rider
when the helmet is worn by the rider, the tail portion being
aerodynamically blended to a back surface of the rider when
the head of the rider is in the down position for decreasing the
coefficient of drag when the rider's head is in the down
position.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 6–11 over Broersma and Gentes
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie showing of obviousness in rejecting claims 1–4 and
6–11 over Broersma and Gentes. See Appeal Br. 5–9; see also Reply Br. 1–
2.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner first finds that Broersma discloses
“an aerodynamic bicycle helmet for decreasing coefficient of drag when a
head of a rider is in a down position,” including an exterior shell of
“substantially spherical configuration,” but “is silent with regard to the tail
Appeal 2014–001094
Application 12/766,212

3
being aerodynamically blended to a back surface of the rider when the
[rider’s] head is in a downward position.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
looks to Gentes for disclosing “a helmet having a tail that is blended to the
back surface of the rider when the [rider’s] head is in a downward riding
position,” and reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to extend the
tail [of Broersma] to blend into the back surface of the rider as taught by
Gentes et al. in order to provide improved aerodynamic streamlining for
wind resistance.” Id. at 3 (citation omitted).
Appellant contends that “Gentes discloses a rider in the head up
position,” and “[i]f the rider were to assume the head down position, then the
tail portion of the helmet would extend upward.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
also explains that “even if the teachings of Gentes were incorporated into the
Broersma device, the tail portion would not blend in with the back surface of
the rider when the rider’s head is in the down position.” Id. at 9.
We agree with Appellant that neither Broersma nor Gentes discloses a
rider’s head in the down position. The head position of the rider illustrated
in both Broersma and Gentes is more upright than the “down position”
shown in Appellant’s Figure 3. Although the Examiner is directed to give a
claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation, the interpretation must be
consistent with: (1) the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless
the term has been given a special definition in the specification); (2) the use
of the claim term in the specification and drawings; and (3) the interpretation
that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We disagree with the Examiner that it is reasonable
to interpret the term “down position” broadly enough to include the head
positions shown in Broersma and Gentes. We therefore find that the
Appeal 2014–001094
Application 12/766,212

4
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not supported by evidence
and, thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be
supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it
cannot stand.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–4 and 6–11 over Broersma and Gentes.

Obviousness of claim 13 over Broersma, Gentes, and Forman
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 over Broersma, Gentes, and
Forman is based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with
respect to the disclosures of Broersma and Gentes. Final Act. 3–4. The
addition of Forman does not remedy the deficiencies of Broersma and
Gentes, as discussed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 13 over Broersma, Gentes, and Forman.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

REVERSED