Wesling, Kevin

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2020

13750648 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2020)

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.
13/750,648 01/25/2013 Kevin Wesling IP 161.1 4587
23470 7590 01/27/2020
SRAM, LLC
1000 W. Fulton Market, 4th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60607
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2020 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):
bgause@sram.com
docket@sram.com
lserdynski@sram.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN WESLING

Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–29 and 32. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “SRAM,
LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “the invention is directed to systems
including wirelessly enabled controllers for bicycle gear changers and/or
bicycle suspensions and other bicycle components and systems.” Spec. ¶ 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 12, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A control device wearable by a bicycle rider, the control
device comprising:
at least one worn control sensor generating a plurality of
non-zero value input signals when actuated;
a control processor in communication with the at least one
control sensor generating control signals responsive to the input
signals to operate a component of a bicycle only when an input
signal of the plurality of input signals meets a component
actuation control threshold;
a wireless transmitter transmitting the control signals; and
a power source connected to the control processor and the
wireless transmitter.
Appeal Br. 26.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yuen2 in view of Ulmen3 and Takebayashi.4

2 Yuen, US 2012/0266358 A1, pub. Oct. 25, 2012.
3 Ulmen et al., US 2013/0081891 A1, pub. Apr. 4, 2013.
4 Takebayashi, US 2009/0102628 A1, pub. Apr. 23, 2009.
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yuen in view of Ulmen, Takebayashi, and Chen.5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takebayashi in view of Ulmen.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 22–25 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takebayashi in view of Ulmen and Schifferdecker.6
5. The Examiner rejects claims 18, 19, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Takebayashi in view of Ulmen and Yuen.
6. The Examiner rejects claims 17, 20, 21, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Takebayashi in view of Ulmen and Chen.
DISCUSSION
Rejection over Yuen, Ulmen, and Takebayashi
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yuen teaches a
wearable control device for a bicycle rider as claimed except that Yuen does
not teach the use of an actuation control threshold or that the wearable
device is used to control operation of the bicycle. Final Act. 2–4. Regarding
these claim requires, the Examiner relies on Ulmen and Takebayashi,
respectively. Id. at 3–4.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner findings and conclusion with
respect to the rejection of claims 1. See id. at 2–4; see also Ans. 3–8. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 by
Appellant’s arguments.

5 Chen et al., WO 2011/020219 A1, pub. Feb. 24, 2011.
6 Schifferdecker et al., US 2011/0285619 A1, pub. Nov. 24, 2011.
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

4
Appellant argues that none of the references teach actuating bicycle
components only when a control threshold is met. Appeal Br. 8. Regarding
Yuen, Appellant asserts that Yuen only teaches controlling “external or
ancillary devices” that do not constitute controlling a bicycle. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that “[c]controlling a bicycle involves controlling
components of the bicycle that are operational during use, wherein a failure
of that control could result in a dangerous situation for a rider.” Id.
Similarly, Appellant argues that Ulmen does not teach controlling a bicycle.
Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded of error to the extent that Appellant argues that
neither Yuen nor Ulmen individually teach controlling a component of a
bicycle during operational use. As the Examiner notes, the rejection relies
on Takebayashi regarding this claim limitation. Ans. 3. Further, to the
extent Appellant generally argues that no reference discloses “actuation of a
bicycle only when a control threshold is met,” that argument is not
commensurate with the rejection before us, which relies on the combination
of references, and not any individual reference, to show that this claim
requirement would have been obvious.
Appellant further argues that Ulmen does not teach “any threshold
with relation to a worn control sensor.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
acknowledges that Ulmen disclose “pressure-sensitive apparel,” but
Appellant asserts that “Ulmen does not disclose any threshold with relation
to its pressure-sensitive apparel” because “the threshold disclosed in Ulmen
is not applicable to the pressure-sensitive apparel disclosed in Ulmen.” Id.
Appellant further argues “[t]he two embodiments in Ulmen are irreconciled
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

5
[sic] and thus features from one may not be mechanically inserted into the
other.” Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments in view of the
reasoning provided by the Examiner, which is supported by the evidence of
record. See Ans. 4–6; see also Final Act. 3. We disagree that the
embodiments referred to by Appellant cannot be reconciled. Ulmen
discloses using a control input 800 to provide a signal 802 to a processor 600
that adjusts motor operation of a personal transport vehicle. See Ulmen ¶¶
23, 40, 41. Ulmen teaches an embodiment in which a pressure sensor is
used to measure pressure on a device to determine whether a pressure
threshold has been met. Id. at 47. The processor 600 “compares the total
measured force to a force threshold” to determine whether the pressure is
indicative of an acceleration signal, a deceleration signal, or a cruising
signal. Id. Ulmen further discloses that “any other suitable input device,
such as a touchscreen slider, one or more stomp pads, or pressure-sensitive
apparel (e.g. gloves) can be used as the control input 800.” Id. at 48.
Although Ulmen does not specifically disclose the use of pressure
sensitive gloves to control operation via a pressure threshold, we agree with
the Examiner that “the force threshold taught by Ulmen is utilized in order to
distinguish commands given by the user” and “one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that an analogous pressure threshold would be necessary
for distinguishing commands given by the user from other hand movements”
when pressure sensitive gloves are used. Ans. 5. Further, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
processor 600 is similarly configured between the embodiments disclosed
and that Ulmen is reasonably disclosing the pressure-sensitive deck and
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

6
pressure-sensitive gloves as recognized alternatives. See id. at 5–6. Thus,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner must provide some other motivation
to combine embodiments in Ulmen. See Reply Br. 2.
Further, we are not persuaded of error to the extent Appellant argues
that “[t]he threshold of Ulmen applied to gloves used as the control input
defeats the stated purpose of Ulmen’s threshold” because “[a] threshold of a
glove control input to a skateboard does not account for weight distribution
of a user operating a skateboard.” Appeal Br. 11. This argument seems to
imply that one would simply substitute the pressure-platform for pressure-
sensitive gloves without alteration. As noted by the Examiner, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the same principles could be
applied to pressure-sensitive apparel without requiring the specific threshold
values of a pressure-sensitive platform, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand “that an analogous pressure threshold would be necessary
for distinguishing commands given by the user from other hand
movements.” Ans. 5.
Next, Appellant argues that there is no disclosure in the references of
“a worn control sensor for controlling a bicycle, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant then asserts that “[t]here must be some underlying pieces of
evidence within the record that are the ‘rational underpinnings’ for the
reason to combine in the manner presented in the obviousness rejection.” Id.
However, this argument is directed to Yuen and Ulmen without reference to
Takebayashi and fails to consider the rejection as a whole, which relies on
the combination of these three references and provides for reasons why the
references would be so combined. See Final Act. 2–4. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error.
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

7
As a corollary to the argument above, Appellant further argues that
“the Examiner’s conclusions are drawn on hindsight of knowledge of the
present invention.” Appeal Br. 14. However, as discussed above,
Appellant’s argument fails to address the full scope of the rejection before
us, and Appellant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by the
Examiner that is found only in Appellant’s disclosure. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).
Finally, with respect to Takebayashi, Appellant argues
Takebayashi discloses control switches attached to the
handlebar. (See Takebayashi, Fig 2). The Examiner fails to
explain why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teaching of a wearable device allowing
control of an ancillary component of a bicycle with the teaching
of a control system coupled to the handlebar of a bicycle.
Appeal Br. 18. We are not persuaded of error because this argument fails to
address the findings and reasoning provided by the Examiner in the
rejection. See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 7.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because
Appellant does not raise separate arguments regarding the dependent claims,
we also sustain the rejection of claims 2–6, 8, and 9.
Rejection over Takebayashi and Ulmen
With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant relies on similar
arguments to those addressed with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that “Takebayashi and Ulmen are described
above and do not disclose” the claim limitations reciting a worn shift control
sensor and a shift control processor. Id. We are not persuaded of error in
the rejection because Appellant’s argument only addresses the references
individually and does not address the full scope of the rejection before us,
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

8
which relies on the proposed combination of references to show that a worn
shift control sensor and processor would have been obvious. See Final Act.
7–9. Appellant does not identify, with specificity, what the alleged error in
this rejection is.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12, and because
Appellant does not raise separate arguments regarding the dependent claims,
we also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13–16 for the same
reasons.
Rejection over Takebayashi, Ulmen, and Schifferdecker
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Schifferdecker
as teaching a “component control threshold based at least in part on a time
between the input signal and another of the plurality of input signals.”
Appeal Br. 21. Appellant asserts that “Schifferdecker discloses a grouping
of signals [that] is not a component control threshold, as claimed.” Id.
Appellant further asserts that “Schifferdecker fails to disclose the generation
of control signals only when a threshold, based at least in part on a time, is
met.” Id.
We are not persuaded of error by this argument. In the rejection, the
Examiner explains that “determining the response time for future
consecutive input signals which ‘belong together’ as a function of the time
interval between the first input signal and the second input signal, so that a
predefined response time must be assumed only between the first two input
signals.” Final Act. 11–12 (citing Schifferdecker ¶ 3)(emphasis omitted).
By determining whether two clicks belong together based on the time
interval between clicks, we agree with the Examiner that Schifferdecker
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

9
discloses the use of time threshold in determining whether those clicks
belong together, e.g., if a second click follows a first click in a time below
the threshold, then those clicks are grouped together.
Appellant also argues that one “would not combine the threshold of
Ulmen with the determination of consecutive input signals which belong
together taught in Schifferdecker” because “a threshold applicable to
determining which input signals of a sequence belong together based on time
is inapplicable to the threshold of Ulmen.” Appeal Br. 21–22. And,
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner fails to explain why one in the art
would combine the threshold in Ulmen with the determination of
consecutive input signals which belong together taught in Schifferdecker.”
Id. at 22.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments for the reasons set
forth by the Examiner. See Ans. 9. Specifically, we first note that the
rejection proposes a combination of Takebayashi, Ulmen, and
Schifferdecker. Appellant’s arguments do not address this combination and
only focus on the compatibility of combining Ulmen and Schifferdecker.
Further, the Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine the references as proposed “in order to distinguish separate
intended gestures made by the user for controlling a device.” Id.
Schifferdecker discloses that measuring a time interval between clicks, or
gestures, makes it “possible to filter out false input signals and thus to
increase the accuracy of the identification of input signals.” Schifferdecker
¶ 3. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
see the applicability of this disclosure to the proposed combination of
Takebayashi and Ulmen, i.e., one would recognize that using a time
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

10
threshold as taught by Schifferdecker in the modified device of Takebayashi
would allow the system to filter out false input signals and distinguish
between intended gestures.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 22. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22. Because
Appellant does not raise arguments with respect to the dependent claims, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 23–25 and 32.
Rejections Incorporating Chen
Claims 7, 17, and 26
Appellant argues that the Examiner has improperly relied on In re
Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950) for the reasoning to combine Chen
with the other references. Appeal Br. 23–24. We agree that the Examiner
erred in relying solely on In re Japikse in determining that the placement of
the shift control sensor would have been obvious in view of Chen with
respect to the requirements of claims 7, 17, and 26. See Final Act. 6, 15–17.
Specifically, although the Examiner determines that moving a sensor to the
tip of a glove would have involved only routine skill in the art, the Examiner
provides no explanation why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a reason to do so. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[M]ere identification in the prior art of each element is insufficient to
defeat the patentability of the combined subject matter as a whole,” and the
Office must “explain the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to select the references and to combine them to render the
claimed invention obvious”). Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 7, 17, and 26, each of which require the placement of a sensor at or
near the tip of a glove.
Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

11
Claims 10, 11, 20, 21, and 29
With respect claims 10, 11, 20, 21, and 29, Appellant’s argument
regarding the Examiner’s reliance on In re Japikse is inapplicable as the
Examiner does not rely on the mere rearrangement of parts in determining
that these claims would have been obvious. Thus, to the extent Appellant
relies on the same arguments here, we are not persuaded. The only other
argument Appellant raises with respect to the Examiner’s reliance on Chen
is that “Chen does not disclose control as it relates to actual bicycle
components [and] Chen is silent on thresholds generally, and bicycle
component actuation or control thresholds specifically.” Appeal Br. 23.
However, we are not persuaded by these contentions because the rejection
does not rely on Chen with respect to the claim limitations related to
controlling a bicycle or actuation control thresholds. Rather, the rejection
relies on Chen only insofar as Chen discloses a wearable input device with
an input at the tip of a finger of the device. See Final Act. 6 (citing Chen ¶
10).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejections
of claims 10, 11, 20, 21, and 29. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
these claims.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–25, 27–29, and
32. We REVERSE the rejections of claims 7, 17, and 26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).

Appeal 2019-001899
Application 13/750,648

12

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8, 9 103(a) Yuen, Ulmen,
Takebayashi
1–6, 8, 9
7, 10, 11 103(a) Yuen, Ulmen,
Takebayashi,
Chen
10, 11 7
12–16 103(a) Takebayashi,
Ulmen
12–16
22–25, 32 103(a) Takebayashi,
Ulmen,
Schifferdecker
22–25, 32
18, 19, 27, 28 103(a) Takebayashi,
Ulmen, Yuen
18, 19, 27,
28

17, 20, 21,
26, 29, 30
103(a) Takebayashi,
Ulmen, Chen
20, 21, 29,
30
17, 26
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–16,
18–25, 27–
29, 32
7, 17, 26

AFFIRMED IN PART