Snehasis Ganguly et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

14276760 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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.
14/276,760 05/13/2014 Snehasis GANGULY 83423571 6817
73442 7590 08/02/2019
JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/Ford Motor Co.)
1420 Spring Hill Road
Suite 325
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
MCGOVERN, BRIAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
docketing@jonesrobb.com
elizabeth.burke@jonesrobb.com
susanne.jones@jonesrobb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte SNEHASIS GANGULY, CURTIS HARGITT, and
BRIAN MARVIN LEMMER
____________

Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Snehasis Ganguly, Curtis Hargitt, and Brian Marvin Lemmer
(hereinafter collectively “Appellant”)1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 15–17, 19, 20, and 30–31 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Guillet (FR 2,887,837, pub.
Jan. 5, 2007) and Andrieux (FR 2,893,291, pub. May 18, 2007). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Ford Global Technologies is the Applicant and real-party-in-interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to vehicle brake assemblies. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
15. A method of constructing a vehicle brake assembly,
comprising:
joining an alignment device with a pedal arm, the alignment
device comprising a pair of wings extending outwardly relative
to the pedal arm and defining a catchment area between the pair
of wings;
subsequently guiding a clevis into the catchment area with
an end portion of a push rod of a brake booster to align the
clevis with the pedal arm; and
coupling the clevis to the pedal arm.
OPINION
Claim 15
The Examiner finds that Guillet discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for the clevis, for which the Examiner relies on Andrieux.
Final Action 2–4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Guillet with a clevis as taught by Andrieux to achieve the claimed invention.
Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, such modification would have entailed
no more than a simple substitution of parts achieving a predictable result.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination fails to
disclose guiding a clevis into a catchment area after the alignment device is
joined with a pedal arm. Appeal Br. 12–18. Appellant argues that Guillet’s
centering device 30 is not part of control rod spherical end 5 as alleged by
the Examiner. Id. at 16. Appellant argues a lack of motivation to modify
Guillet with a clevis. Id. at 21.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
3
In response, the Examiner accuses Appellant of engaging in an
individual attack on the Guillet reference, rather than addressing the
proposed combination. Ans. 4–8. The Examiner further accuses Appellant
of failing to supply “logical reasoning” as to why the resulting combination
does not disclose the limitation. Id. at 8. Finally, with respect to combining
the references, the Examiner states:
Regarding Applicant’s arguments related to the specific
reasoning for combining Guillet and Andrieux, the Examiner
notes that the focus of the instant application is on the wing
elements and the ability of the alignment device (10) to guide
the clevis into alignment with the pedal arm through the wing
elements. However, the Examiner notes that the instant
application is wholly silent on any benefit of the clevis itself
relative to any other connection means. The instant application
recognizes benefits for the alignment device, however, the
instant application does not recognize any benefits for the
clevis, and thus it is the Examiner's understanding of the instant
application that the alignment device would continue to provide
the disclosed benefits related to alignment through the wing
elements with other fastening means that are fundamentally
different than a clevis. For example, paragraphs [037]
and [042] of the specification of the instant application
explicitly indicate that Applicant intends to cover obvious
equivalents to the instant application. Therefore, as best
understood by the Examiner, Claim 15 would cover obvious
equivalents to the claimed clevis. However, as the specification
of the instant application does not disclose that the clevis itself
provides any benefit, the decision to choose a clevis instead of a
different fastening means is simply a matter of design choice.
Id. at 11–12. The Examiner then alludes generally to skill level in the art
and remarks that a one of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known
options within his or her technical grasp. Id. at 12, citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
4
Guillet discloses a means of connecting a brake pedal arm to a control
rod and brake power booster. Guillet, 1.2 Guillet discloses control rod 2
with a spherical end 5 that fits into lock 7 which, in turn, is connected to
brake pedal arm 1. Guillet, Figs. 1, 3–5. Spherical end 5 features axis 28
with laterally protruding ends 29, each of which fits into a corresponding
bearing 23 of lock 7. Id. Spherical end 5 is guided into lock 7 by
elements 14–18 distributed along the edges of lock 7. Id. The end of each
element (14–18) is bent in a divergent manner so that, after spherical end 5
is moved past elements 14–18, such elements retract to trap spherical end 5
within lock 7 in a manner that permits control rod 2 to pivot about ends 29
disposed in bearings 23. Id. Guillet’s lock 7 features parallel tabs 24 and 25
disposed on opposite sides of pedal arm 1, which tabs operate to affix lock 7
to pedal arm 1 by means such as crimping, etc. Id. at 4.
In addition, Guillet’s assembly features centering device 30, which is
secured to pedal arm 1 by two parallel, lateral branches 32 and 33 disposed
on opposite respective faces of pedal arm 1. Id. at 4, Figs. 4–5. Bearing 31
of centering device 30 is disposed between branches 32 and 33 such that
centering device 30 has an overall U-shaped appearance. Id. Branches 32
and 33 are affixed to pedal arm 1 by means such as crimping, etc. Id.
The Examiner is correct in observing that centering device 30 is not a
clevis. Final Action 3. The Examiner in incorrect, however, in finding that
centering device 30 forms an end portion of a push rod. Id. at 2. It does not.
Rather, it is a component that is distinct and separate from control rod 2 and
is affixed, not to control rod 2, but to brake pedal arm 1. Id. at 4, Figs. 4–5.

2 Citations to the Specification of Guillet are to the English translation
thereof. Citations to the drawings are to the drawings appearing in the
French language version thereof.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
5
Consequently, modifying centering device 30 with holes and a clevis pin
would not operate to connect control rod 2 to pedal arm 1. Id.
Andrieux is directed to a pivot type connection between a brake pedal
arm and a control rod of a brake power booster. Andrieux, 1.3 The end of
control rod 1 comprises a clevis (U-shaped yoke 2) with two parallel legs 3
and 4. Id. Fig. The legs of clevis 2 have holes to accommodate clevis pin 5.
Id. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed combination does disclose, by a
preponderance of the evidence, a clevis device that attaches a control rod to
a brake pedal arm. The problem with the rejection is not with the
Examiner’s findings of fact regarding the presence of the claimed structural
elements in the prior art, but rather in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the combinability of the references.
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of
unpatentability, we do not view the proposed combination as a simple
substitution of parts with a predictable result. In the first instance, we are
not entirely sure which parts the Examiner proposes to substitute to
accomplish the combination, a point of confusion that we share with
Appellant. See Reply Br. 3–7.4 The Examiner’s point may be well taken
that combining the teaching of two references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures (Ans. 5), however, more than such a
conclusory statement is required to satisfy the Examiner’s burden of making

3 Citations to the Specification of Andrieux are to the English translation
thereof. Citations to the drawings are to the drawings appearing in the
French language version thereof.
4 The Examiner’s articulation of how the two references could be combined
is so abstruse that Appellant was forced to postulate a plurality of possible
theories as to what the Examiner meant by the rejection. Id.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
6
out a prima facie case. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The substitution that the Examiner is proposing here is not as simple as the
Examiner’s conclusory reasoning suggests. Certainly, much more is
required that merely substituting spherical end 5 of Guillet with clevis 2 of
Andrieux. For example, in order to serve as an alignment device, lock 7 of
Guillet would have to undergo a major redesign in order to accommodate a
clevis and clevis pin arrangement, particularly in view of the order of
assembly limitation of claim 15.
The steps of a method claim are not ordinarily construed to require a
particular order. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256
F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, the foregoing general rule
does not apply when a claim recites a specific order. Id. In the instant case,
Appellant’s alignment device is provided with outwardly extending wings
that provide room for clevis 208 to be inserted between alignment device 10
and pedal arm 102 in a manner that further allows alignment of bore hole 15
with bushing hole 106 and then insertion of clevis pin 50 into said holes.
Spec. ¶¶ 32–34, Figs. 4–6. The assembly of Appellant’s invention is
accomplished only after alignment device 10 is joined to pedal arm 102.
Claims App. claim 15 (explicitly reciting “subsequently”).
Claim 15 is a method claim. Claims App. Part of the problem with
the Examiner’s rejection is that it focuses too closely on the structural
elements of the claim without taking into account how those structural
elements interact with the sequence of steps recited in the claim. The
Examiner’s rejection lacks sufficient detail and analysis to allow us to
understand how and/or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified Guillet with Andrieux to permit the recited order of steps in the
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
7
claimed method. This deficiency cannot be overcome by the Examiner
merely alluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
somehow been able to figure out how to make the necessary modifications.
It is well settled that rarely, if ever, does skill in the art operate to supply
missing knowledge or prior art to reach an obviousness judgment. Al-Site
Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Ryko
Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (explaining
that skill in the art does not act as a bridge over gaps in the substantive
presentation of an obviousness case).
To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the
invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of
record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the
insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which
only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
The obviousness inquiry requires a determination that a skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Kinetic
Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2012). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the
likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the
claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge
Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other words, “one must have
a motivation to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of
achieving what is claimed in the patent-at-issue.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
8
Here, the Examiner notes, correctly, that a focus of the instant
application is on the wing elements and the ability of the alignment device
(10) to guide a clevis into alignment with the pedal arm through the wing
elements. Ans. 11. However, the alignment device of Guillet (lock 7) is
designed to guide spherical end 5, not a clevis. Guillet, Figs. 2–3. Guillet
provides no analogous structure that guides a clevis into alignment with a
pedal arm. Guiding the clevis into alignment is closely related to the recited
order of the steps in claim 15, i.e., “subsequently guiding a clevis.” Claims
App. Because the Examiner’s findings and conclusion are insufficient to
establish the recited order of the guiding limitation, the Examiner errs in
concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
“motivation to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of
achieving what is claimed.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367
(emphasis added).
In summary, although it may be true that alignment devices with
catchment areas were known in the prior art, and that it was known to
attached push rods of control arms to brake pedals with a clevis device, it
does not necessarily follow that a person of ordinary skill in the art, armed
with only the teachings of Guillet and Andrieux, would have found it
obvious to design an alignment device with outwardly extended wings to
facilitate connection of the clevis to the pedal arm in the specific sequence
recited in claim 15.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and
that the Examiner errs in reaching a legal conclusion of unpatentability.
Appeal 2019-000100
Application 14/276,760
9
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
claim 15.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, and 31
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 15. Claims
App. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 15. Thus, for
essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with claim 15, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, and 31.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15–17, 19, 20, 30,
and 31 is reversed.
REVERSED