Ex Parte Pepka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13523490 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
13/523,490 06/14/2012 Charles F. Pepka RCSC-l-1011 6528
25315 7590 09/19/2017
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 4800
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES F. PEPKA
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles F. Pepka (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1—13
and 15 as unpatentable over Okazima (US 3,984,119, iss. Oct. 5, 1976) and
Wert (US 2,215,238, iss. Sept. 17, 1940), and claims 16—20 as unpatentable
over Okazima, Wert, and McIntyre (US 2,902,274, iss. Sept. 1, 1959). The
Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Renton Coil Spring Company as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, and it recites:
1. A dual-spring assembly for a shock absorber, the
dual-spring assembly comprising:
an adjustable first support member secured to a first shock
absorber portion;
an adjustable second support member secured to a second
shock absorber portion slidably coupled to the first shock
absorber portion;
a collar positioned between the first and second adjustable
support members, the collar being threadably secured to the
second shock absorber;
a movable bracket positioned between the collar and the
adjustable second support member, wherein the movable bracket
has a first side and a second side opposite the first side, and
wherein the movable bracket is movable between the adjustable
second support member and the collar, and wherein the collar
prevents the movable bracket from moving beyond the collar
toward the adjustable first support member;
a first spring having a first spring rate, a first end
contacting the adjustable first support member, and a second end
contacting the first side of the movable bracket; and
a second spring having a second spring rate lower than the
first spring rate, a first end contacting the second side of the
movable bracket, and a second end contacting the adjustable
second support member, wherein the first and second springs are
arranged in series;
when the movable bracket contacts the collar the
second spring has a predetermined preload;
when an applied load is less than a predetermined
threshold level the first spring is configured to absorb the
load and the preload of the second spring is not overcome;
when the applied load reaches the predetermined
threshold the first and second springs are configured to
absorb the load in combination;
2
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
the adjustable first support member is movable
toward the first spring to increase a preload on the first
spring and away from the first spring to decrease the
preload on the first spring to control vehicle sag; and
the adjustable second support member is movable
toward the second spring to increase the preload on the
second spring to increase the predetermined threshold and
away from the second spring to decrease the
predetermined threshold.
Appeal Br. 12—13 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness over Okazima and Wert
(Claims 1—13 and 15)
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Okazima, in Figure 4, discloses a dual-spring
assembly as specified in claim 1, except that Okazima’s first support
member (i.e., upper spring shoe 149) is not “adjustable” to increase or
decrease a preload on the first spring (i.e., spring 144).2 Non-Final Act. 3;
see Okazima, 6:26—27 (describing only “an upper spring shoe 149 at the
upper end of the piston rod 124”).
The Examiner finds Wert discloses a dual-spring assembly having two
adjustable support members (i.e., adjusting nuts 21 and 21) to adjust the
preload of two adjacent springs (i.e., springs 22 and 23). Non-Final Act. 3—
2 The Examiner also finds Okazima’s collar (i.e., stopper 147) is not
“threadably secured to” the second shock absorber portion, as claimed, and
relies upon Wert for the obviousness of using a threaded connection.
Non-Final Act. 3-A. Appellant has waived any challenge to this aspect of
the Examiner’s rejection by failing to present pertinent argument in the
Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore, need not
consider it further.
3
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
4. The Examiner finds Wert’s members 21 and 21 are threaded to tube 15,
thereby permitting adjustment of the spring preloads “in a rather easy
manner.” Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to make
Okazima’s first support member 149 to be adjustable as taught by Wert, “to
provide a means of easily adjusting the preload of’ first spring 144
independently of second spring 145. Id. at 4, 7—8.
Appellant argues Okazima fails to disclose first and second adjustable
support members, as claimed. Appeal Br. 9 (referring to Okazima’s front
fork suspension 20, illustrated in Figures 1—3); Reply Br. 1—2 (analogizing
to Okazima’s rear wheel suspension 120, illustrated in Figure 4 and cited by
the Examiner). Appellant contends the only spring preload adjustability
provided by Okazima is adjustment of cam 127 and collar 147 to set the
preload on second spring 145. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 1—2. Appellant
contends Okazima does not disclose preload adjustment of first spring 144,
which may not be accomplished by collar 147 and first support
member 149.3 Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 1—2.
Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection
because the Examiner does not find Okazima to disclose two adjustable
support members in suspension 120. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. Instead, the
Examiner finds suspension 120 has a first non-adjustable support
member 149 for first spring 144, and a second adjustable support member in
cam 127, which may be adjusted to modify the preload of second spring 145.
3 Appellant later contradictorily argues movement of collar 147 and
adjustment of cam 127 “enables modifying of the relative lengths and
preloads of both of the springs” 144 and 145. Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 1—2.
4
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
Non-Final Act. 3, 7; Ans. 2. That finding is supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. Okazima, 6:41—48. Thus, Appellant’s contention that
Okazima fails to disclose two adjustable support members in
suspension 120, even if factually accurate, fails to identify any error in the
Examiner’s findings concerning the disclosure of Okazima, which is not
relied on by the Examiner to teach two adjustable support members.
Appellant also argues the Examiner fails to provide a rational basis for
modifying Okazima’s first support member 149 to be adjustable to modify
the preload of first spring 144. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant,
Okazima discloses movement of collar 147 among grooves 148a—148c and
adjustment of cam 127 “enables modifying of the relative lengths and
preloads of both of the springs” 144 and 145, so “Okazima does not disclose
any desirability or benefit of another point of adjustment.” Id.; Reply Br. 1—
2. Appellant also points out both of Wert’s adjustable support members 21
and 21 are mounted on the same tube 15. Appeal Br. 9, 10. Appellant,
therefore, contends Wert fails to disclose a first adjustable support member
mounted on a first shock absorber portion, and a second adjustable support
member mounted on a second shock absorber portion slidably coupled to the
first shock absorber portion. Id. Appellant also contends there is no rational
relationship between Wert’s pipe suspension mechanism and Okazima’s
vehicle suspension mechanism. Id.
We determine the Examiner has sufficiently articulated a rational
basis for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made
Okazima’s first support member 149 adjustable to modify the preload of first
spring 144, in light of Wert. As a preliminary matter, a prior art reference is
analogous to an application (1) if it is from the same field of endeavor as the
5
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
application, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, but is nonetheless reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Both tests are satisfied here.
The common field of endeavor is shock absorbing suspensions. See Spec.
13; Okazima, Abstract; Wert, pg. 1, col. 1,11. 1—18. Further, even if
Appellant’s field of endeavor is limited to vehicle shock absorbers, Wert is
reasonably related to that field even though it suspends pipes, because both
types of shock absorbers prevent excessive longitudinally-induced vibrations
from being transmitted through the shock absorbing system. E.g., Spec. 3;
Okazima, 1:11—28; Wert, pg. 1, col. 1,1. 54 to col. 2,1. 4, and col. 2,11. 43—
55.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Okazima recognizes the
advantage of using cam 127 to adjust the preload of second spring 145 in a
dual-spring shock absorber, and Wert discloses independently adjusting the
preload of both springs in a dual-spring shock absorber. Non-Final Act. 7—
8; Ans. 2. These combined disclosures provide a rational reason for a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Okazima’s first support member 149 to
be adjustable to modify the preload of first spring 144, beneficially
“allowing] for individual adjustment of the preload in each spring.”
Non-Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 2. In particular, Okazima’s existing arrangement
may permit modifying the preload of both springs 144 and 145 together (via
adjustment of collar 147), or modifying the preload of second spring 145
independently of first spring 144 (via adjustment of cam 127). However,
Okazima’s existing arrangement does not permit modifying the preload of
first spring 144 independently of second spring 145.
6
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated, from
Wert’s disclosure of two adjustable support members 21 and 21 permitting
independent preload adjustment of two springs 22 and 23, that such an
arrangement could beneficially be achieved in Okazima by making first
support member 149 adjustable. The test for obviousness is not whether
Wert’s features may be bodily incorporated into the structure of Okazima,
but rather is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
having been obvious over Okazima and Wert.
Claims 2—13 and 15
Appellant does not present any additional argument for the
patentability of claims 2—13 and 15. Appeal Br. 8—10. Therefore, for the
reasons provided above in connection with claim 1, we sustain the rejection
of claims 2—13 and 15 as having been obvious over Okazima and Wert. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
B. Obviousness over Okazima, Wert, and McIntyre
(Claims 16—20)
In opposing the rejection of claim 16, Appellant relies on the
arguments set forth above in connection with claim 1, and Appellant does
not present any additional argument for the patentability of claims 17—20.
Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, for the reasons provided above in connection with
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 16—20 as having been obvious
over Okazima, Wert, and McIntyre. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2015-003301
Application 13/523,490
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13 and 15—20 as having
been unpatentable over the prior art is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8