R. Fulton et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2020

2020001817 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2020)

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.
13/249,420 09/30/2011 R. Scott Fulton HEND-IY-REG 8371
112378 7590 10/26/2020
Dureska & Moore, LLC
4518 Fulton Drive NW
Suite 200
Canton, OH 44718
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2020 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 R. SCOTT FULTON,
ANDREW J. WESTNEDGE,
DMITRIY E. RUBALSKIY,
MICHAEL J. KEELER, and
PHILLIPPI R. PIERCE

Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11, which are the sole claims
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

2
pending in this application.1 See Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to brake systems for
wheeled vehicles. More particularly, the invention is directed to the brake
component mounting brackets that are attached to or adjacent to the axle of
the vehicle.” Spec. 1:10–12. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole independent
claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. A brake system component axle mount for an
axle/suspension system comprising:
a) an axle formed with at least one depression;
b) a sleeve formed with at least one depression, said at
least one sleeve depression being formed in an exterior surface
of the sleeve, said sleeve disposed about said axle, said at least
one axle depression matingly engaging said at least one sleeve
depression to form a mated pair of depressions for mechanically
locking the sleeve to the axle wherein said at least one sleeve
depression is plastically deformed and said at least one axle
depression is plastically and elastically deformed when the
sleeve is mechanically locked to the axle; and
c) a mount assembly rigidly attached to said sleeve for
mounting a brake assembly of the axle/suspension system.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Breese US 6,015,350 Jan. 18, 2000
Morris et al. (“Morris”) US 6,240,806 B1 June 5, 2001

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Hendrickson USA, L.L.C.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

3
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 6,241,266 B1 June 5, 2001
Spielmannleitner US 2003/0024095 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Breese, Morris, and Spielmannleitner.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Breese, Morris, Spielmannleitner, and Smith.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Breese, Morris, Spielmannleitner, and Appellant’s
Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) of Figure 1.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–8
as unpatentable over Breese, Morris, and Spielmannleitner
Sole independent claim 1 recites an axle and a “sleeve disposed about
said axle.” Claim 1 further recites a mount “rigidly attached to said sleeve
for mounting a brake assembly of the axle/suspension system” to the sleeve.
The Examiner relies on Breese for disclosing the various structural
limitations recited in claim 1, but acknowledges that “Breese is silent with
regards to the system component axle mount being a brake system
component axle mount.” Final Act. 2 (emphasis added). The Examiner
relies on Morris for teaching the system component axle mount “being a
brake system component axle mount.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains
that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the teachings
of Breese and Morris “in order to provide a means of securely connecting a
brake system to an axle.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner additionally relies on
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

4
Spielmannleitner for teaching the use of “deformation pressure” for coupling
the axle and sleeve together, and provides a reason for this manner of
coupling. Final Act. 3; see also id. at 4, 7.
Appellant notes that the Examiner’s corresponding axle in Breese
(i.e., item 23) is not an axle, but instead is part of a driveshaft. See Appeal
Br. 14. Appellant explains the difference between an axle and a driveshaft
stating “[a] driveshaft functions to provide a rotatable driving connection”
whereas “an axle, as is known to those with ordinary skill in the art, is a
rigid, non-rotating tube or beam.”2 Appeal Br. 14, Reply Br. 5. Breese
further supports a distinction between a driveshaft and an axle by identifying
telescoping tubes 23 and 24 as part of “driveshaft tube 16ʹ” while identifying
a different and transverse component 14 as the “axle assembly.” See Breese
Figs. 1, 2 and 2:35–65.
In the above rejection, the Examiner correlates Breese’s driveshaft
component 23 as corresponding to the recited axle. See Final Act. 2. We
note that the Examiner does not address any distinction between a driveshaft
and an axle “as is known to those with ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br.
14. Instead, the Examiner unifies the two stating, “Examiner notes that a
driveshaft is a type of axle.” Ans. 9.
Assuming arguendo that the Examiner is correct that “a driveshaft is a
type of axle” (Ans. 9), the Examiner does not explain why a skilled person,
seeking a mount for a brake assembly, would choose to mount the assembly
on Breese’s “axle” that rotates rather than on an “axle” that doesn’t. As

2 The non-rotatable characteristic of an axle is also consistent with Morris
which states “axle 35 extends between and is immovably captured in
suspension beam 24.” Morris 4:40–41.
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

5
stated above, the Examiner’s reasoning to combine Breese and Morris is, “in
order to provide a means of securely connecting a brake system to an axle,”
but the Examiner remains silent as to how one skilled in the art would
achieve a functioning brake system when the suggested combination
involves a brake system that spins with the driveshaft. In other words, the
Examiner does not explain how the vehicle’s brake system, which biases
against a stop to reduce the vehicle’s speed, would operate when the brake
system itself is moving along with the driveshaft. In short, the Examiner
does not make clear why a skilled person would initially select a rotating
driveshaft (Breese) to mount a brake assembly thereupon (Morris).
In fact, it is noted that Figure 1 of Morris, which the Examiner
references (see Final Act. 3), is somewhat similar in design to Appellant’s
Figure 1 (AAPA) in that Morris also provides a stable platform for the brake
assembly. To be clear, Morris teaches that it is an object of the invention “to
prevent cam tube rotation induced by . . . loads caused by operation of the
brake system.” Morris 2:54–59. The Examiner does not explain why a
skilled person would combine the two references because their teachings
appear to lead in opposite directions (one allowing movement of the brake
platform, the other restricting movement of the brake platform).
Appellant presents yet another reason why the combination with
Breese is improper. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Breese is directed to a
driveshaft that “is designed specifically to collapse” and hence the
employment of telescoping tubes 23, 24. Appeal Br. 12; see also Breese
1:4–5, Ans. 9 (“Examiner emphasizes that [Breese’s] driveshaft is designed
to collapse in an accident.”). By mounting the brake assembly on Breese’s
driveshaft, the Examiner has not made clear how a collapsing brake
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

6
assembly can still provide braking when needed the most, i.e., “in an
accident.” Stated another way, it is understood that a braking system
requires a stable mount for proper functioning. See, e.g., Appellant’s Figure
1 (AAPA); Morris 2:54–59. Thus, if Breese’s driveshaft is employed to
provide such a mount, we would then agree with Appellant that the new
stability required of Breese’s driveshaft “would render the structure
disclosed in the Breese ‘350 patent inoperable” because Breese’s driveshaft
could no longer be permitted to collapse. Appeal Br. 13.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. We reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–8 as being obvious over Breese, Morris, and
Spielmannleitner. We further reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 9–11 because the additional art relied upon (i.e., Smith and
AAPA) do not cure the above defect with respect to claim 1. See Final Act.
5, 6.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Appeal 2020-001817
Application 13/249,420

7
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8 103(a) Breese, Morris,
Spielmannleitner
1–8
9, 10 103(a) Breese, Morris,
Spielmannleitner,
Smith
9, 10
11 103(a) Breese, Morris,
Spielmannleitner,
AAPA
11
Overall
Outcome
1–11

REVERSED