Ex Parte Tsumiyama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 9, 2012

10971533 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AKIRA TSUMIYAMA
____________

Appeal 2010-004299
Application 10/971,533
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004299
Application 10/971,533

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Sato (EP 1,440,878 A2; pub. Jul. 28, 2004), and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sato. Claims 7, 11, and 18-23 were cancelled. Claims 8-
10 and 12-17 were withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ representative presented oral argument on March 6, 2012.
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A position control mechanism for a bicycle control
device comprising:
a positioning member being biased in a first rotational
direction about a rotational axis;
a position maintaining member movably mounted with
respect to the positioning member to selectively engage the
positioning member for maintaining the positioning member
in one of a plurality of predetermined shift positions when
the position maintaining member is engaged with the
positioning member; and
a position releasing mechanism including first and
second driving members that are movably arranged with
respect to the positioning maintaining member to selectively
engage the position maintaining member such that the first
and second driving members move the position maintaining
member from engagement with the positioning member to
rotate in the first rotational direction in response to operation
of the first and second driving members, the positioning
member moving through at least two of the plurality of
predetermined shift positions in the first rotational direction
in response to a single progressive movement of the position
releasing mechanism, the first driving member being located
radially outward of the position maintaining member relative
to the rotational axis of the positioning member.
Appeal 2010-004299
Application 10/971,533

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6 as anticipated by Sato
The Examiner found that Sato discloses a positioning member 318, a
position maintaining member (position maintaining plate 254, pawl shaft
258, and pawl 266), and a position releasing mechanism (release wheel 330)
that includes a first drive member (drive pawl 228) and a second drive
member (drive plate 202) that selectively engage the position maintaining
member 254, 258, 266 to move the position maintaining member 254, 258,
266 from engagement with positioning member 318 to rotate in a first
rotational direction in response to operation of the first and second driving
members 228, 202. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner also found that the second
drive member 202 is pivotally mounted to the back of the plate 254 of the
position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 by a shaft 150 and therefore is
selectively engaged with the position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 9 (citing fig. 3). The Examiner also found that the
pawl 266 of the position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 can move the
position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 from engagement with the
positioning member as called for in claim 1. Ans. 10.
We agree with Appellant that the first drive 228 and second drive 202
do not selectively engage position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 and
move position maintaining member 254, 258, 266 from engagement with the
positioning member 318. App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner has not explained
how a connection of drive plate 202 to the position maintaining plate 254 via
shaft 150 is a selective engagement or how that connection moves position
maintaining member 254, 258, 266 from engagement with the positioning
member 318. The Examiner also has not explained how the position
Appeal 2010-004299
Application 10/971,533

4
releasing mechanism (release wheel 330) includes a first and second drive
228, 202 when the drives 228, 202 are disclosed as separate elements (see
Sato, fig. 3) or how the drive members 202, 228 selectively engage1 position
maintaining member 254, 258, 266 to move position maintaining member
254, 258, 266 from engagement with the positioning member 318. See App.
Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-6. The second drive 228 engages the teeth 322 of
positioning member 318 to rotate the positioning member 318 and cause the
pawl 266 of the position maintaining member to ride over teeth 326 of
positioning member 318. Sato [0020-0021]. The Examiner has not pointed
to anything in Sato that shows the first or second drive 202, 228 selectively
engaging the pawl 266 of the position maintaining member to move the pawl
266 from engagement with the positioning member 318 as called for in
claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 as
anticipated by Sato.
Claims 1-6 as obvious over Sato
The Examiner relied on the same findings in rejecting claims 1-6 as
obvious over Sato and determined that it would have been obvious to change
the size, shape, location, or orientation of Sato’s various components so that
Sato’s positioning member moves through at least two of the plurality of
predetermined shift positions in a first rotational directional in response to a
single progressive movement of Sato’s position releasing mechanism. Ans.
7. For the reasons discussed supra for the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Sato, we agree with Appellants that Sato does not disclose winding pawl

1 An ordinary and customary meaning of “engage” includes “to interlock
with, mesh, to cause (mechanical parts) to mesh.” See MERRIAM WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE® THESAURUS 413 (11th ed. 2005). See also App. Br. 14.
Appeal 2010-004299
Application 10/971,533

5
228 or drive plate 202 selectively engaging position maintaining pawl 266 to
move the pawl 266 from engagement with the positioning member (ratchet
318) as called for in claim 1. The Examiner has not made any findings or
determination that it would have been obvious to modify these components
to satisfy the selective engagement limitation. As such we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1-6 as obvious over Sato.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Sato is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sato is REVERSED.

REVERSED

JRG/nlk