Ex Parte MIYAHARA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14090446 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/090,446 11/26/2013
55694 7590 07/03/2018
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC)
1500 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y osuke MIYAHARA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
048803-0047 (506419) 1095
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSUKE MIYAHARA and
KENICHI SHIMAMURA1
Appeal2017-009124
Application 14/090,446
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yosuke Miyahara and Kenichi Shimanmra ("Appellants") appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants' Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Br.") the real party in
interest is Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009124
Application 14/090,446
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a disc brake caliper. Spec. 1 :4--5.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A disc brake caliper, comprising;
an outer body, provided to be opposed to an outer side
surface of a rotor configured to be rotated with a vehicle wheel,
and including an outer cylinder which is opened towards the
outer side surface;
an inner body, provided to be opposed to an inner side
surface of the rotor, and including an inner cylinder which is
opened towards the inner side surface; and
joining parts, provided outside of the rotor in a radial
direction of the rotor and extending from the inner side surface
of the rotor to the outer side surface of the rotor, and connecting
the inner body and the outer body with each other at both end
portions in a circumferential direction of the rotor so that an
opening part which is penetrated in the radial direction is formed
between the joining parts and defined by the outer body, the inner
body and the joining parts,
wherein an inward end edge of both end edges in the
circumferential direction of at least one of the joining parts,
which defines an end part of the opening part in the
circumferential direction, is inclined relative to an axial direction
of the rotor towards a central part in the circumferential direction
of the outer body from an inner end at the inner side surface of
the rotor to an outer end at the outer side surface of the rotor of
the opening part in the axial direction of the rotor, so that a length
of the opening part in the circumferential direction is shortened
from the inner body to the outer body such that the opening part
is asymmetric in the axial direction across the rotor.
Bo fill
Burgoon
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
us 4,476,962
US 7,438,161 B2
2
Oct. 16, 1984
Oct. 21, 2008
Appeal2017-009124
Application 14/090,446
REJECTION
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bofill and Burgoon.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Bo fill discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, but that the caliper of Bofill does not include an outer cylinder.
Final Act. 2-3. As the Examiner finds that Burgoon discloses "a well-
known type of caliper comprising inner and outer cylinders," the Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the caliper ofBofill to have an outer cylinder "in order [to]
distribute the braking force evenly from inner and outer bodies." Final Act.
3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rationale is "conclusory" and
"does not provide sufficient 'articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' Br. 9 (citing
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR Int'! Co, v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538 (2007).
In response, the Examiner states that because "flexing during a
braking operation" occurs in brakes having a one-sided piston caliper, as in
Bofill, and in a two-sided piston caliper, as in Burgoon, "modifying the
brake of Bofill to having two-sided pistons as shown by Burgoon, is
reasonable and is maintained." Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's rationale is insufficient.
Bofill' s invention is directed to "a disc brake having a sliding yoke or
caliper." Bofill, 1 :4--5. The brake of Bofill operates using "piston 26 ... to
3
Appeal2017-009124
Application 14/090,446
directly urge a first or inner friction member 32 against a first face of the
disc 12," and using sliding caliper 14 to reactingly "urge the second or outer
friction member 34 against the opposite face of the disc 12." Bofill, 2:41--47.
Given that Bofill teaches that the disclosed configuration results in
even wear of outer friction member 34 (see Bofill, 3:63--4:3), the Examiner
does not make clear why an additional cylinder on the outer body would
provide anything that the sliding caliper in Bofill does not already attain by
reaction. Specifically, the Examiner's rationale, namely, to distribute the
braking force evenly from inner and outer bodies, appears to be achieved
already by Bo fill, without reliance upon Burgoon, and, in light of this, the
Examiner does not explain what reason would have existed for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reasoning for adding an outer
cylinder is not supported by rational underpinning, and, therefore, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-7 depending from
claim 1, as unpatentable over Bofill and Burgoon.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
4