R. Fulton et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 26, 20202020001817 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation