Ex Parte MIKI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2013

11936236 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YOSHIMITSU MIKI
____________________

Appeal 2012-000996
Application 11/936,236
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000996
Application 11/936,236

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yoshimitsu Miki (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Tabe (JP-3283289-B, pub. Nov. 2, 1993).1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A bicycle control device comprising:
a base member including a handlebar mounting structure;
a control unit mounted to the base member;
an attachment member movably coupled to the base
member;
a first operating lever operatively coupled to the control
unit, the first operating lever being coupled to the attachment
member to move with the attachment member when the
attachment member is moved relative to the base member, and
the first operating lever being pivotally coupled to the
attachment member to pivot relative to the attachment member
about a first pivot axis to operate the control unit to perform a
control unit operation; and
a second operating lever operatively coupled to the
control unit and pivotally coupled to the attachment member on
a second pivot axis to operate the control unit differently from
the control unit operation of the first operating lever in response
to the second operating lever being pivoted on the second pivot
axis relative to the attachment member, and the second
operating lever pivoting on the second pivot axis relative to the
attachment member in response to the first operating lever

1 All references are to the machine translation provided by the National
Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (INPIT).
Appeal 2012-000996
Application 11/936,236

3
being pivoted on the first pivot axis relative to the attachment
member.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Tabe discloses a bicycle control device
comprising, inter alia, a “[f]irst operating lever (4) . . . pivotally coupled to
the attachment member to pivot relative to the attachment member about a
first pivot axis (Y),” a “[s]econd operating lever ([5]) . . . pivotally coupled
to the attachment member (near 5; Fig. 9) on a second pivot axis (at P),” and
that the “[s]econd operating lever pivot[s] on the second axis relative to the
attachment member in response to the first operating lever being pivoted on
the first pivot axis relative to the attachment member.” Ans. 3-4.
The Appellant disputes these findings. App. Br. 11-13. In particular,
the Appellant argues that Tabe “merely discloses that the gearshift lever 5
(allegedly corresponding to second operating lever . . . ) pivots together with
the brake lever 4 (allegedly corresponding to first operating lever . . . ) in
response to the brake lever 4 being pivoted on the first axis Y.” Id. at 11-12.
The Appellant also argues that “the gearshift lever 5 is stationary about the
second axis P in response to the brake lever 4 being pivoted on the first axis
Y,” and thus, “the gearshift lever 5 does not pivot about the second axis P in
response to the brake lever 4 being pivoted about the first axis Y.” Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds that Tabe discloses “the second operating
lever 5, which is mounted on second pivot axis P, indeed pivots with the first
operating lever 4 in response to the first operating lever 4 pivoting about the
first pivot axis Y,” and thus,
the second operating lever 5 is mounted upon the first operating
lever 4 on the second pivot axis P; the first operating lever 4 is
Appeal 2012-000996
Application 11/936,236

4
mounted on the first pivot axis Y; and the second operating
lever 5 pivots in response to the first operating lever being
pivoted because they are connected together.

Ans. 8-9 (citing Tabe, para. [0012]). The Examiner also states that Tabe
“does not disclose that the second operating lever 5 is stationary during the
respective operation, nor does the interpretation require that the second
operating lever 5 be stationary about the second pivot axis during the
respective operation,” that “the structural relationship between the second
operating lever 5 and the first operating lever 4 does not require the second
operating lever 5 to be stationary with respect to the second pivot axis P,”
and that “the second operating lever 5 indeed pivots in order to function
properly.” Ans. 9 (citing Tabe, para. [0012]).
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Figures 9 and 10 of Tabe
show that gearshift lever 5 is mounted on brake lever 4. Figure 10 indicates
that, when brake lever 4 pivots around second axis Y to move from position
N to position U, gearshift lever 5 moves with brake lever 4. However,
Figures 10 and 11 of Tabe show that the gearshift lever 5 does not pivot
around third axis P when it moves with gearshift lever 4 as it pivots around
second axis Y. Thus, Tabe does not support the Examiner’s finding of a
“[s]econd operating lever pivoting on the second axis relative to the
attachment member in response to the first operating lever being pivoted on
the first axis relative to the attachment member” by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 2, and 4-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Tabe.
Appeal 2012-000996
Application 11/936,236

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4-16 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc