BLACK & DECKER INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2020001386 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
14/806,979 07/23/2015 Curtis STANFIELD P-US-TN-15638 9889
28268 7590 12/18/2020
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
6201 Greenleigh Avenue, MR045
Middle River, MD 21220
EXAMINER
PHAM, LEDA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURTIS STANFIELD and WONG KUN NG
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed July 23, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated January 7, 2019
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed May 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and
Examiner’s Answer dated September 20, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–22. Appeal Br. 10.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to portable hand held power
tools including drills and drill drivers. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 16,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix 19, 22):
1. A power tool comprising:
a motor configured to be rotatable in a forward direction
and a reverse direction;
a tool holder driven by the motor;
a user operable trigger for operating the motor;
a reversing switch for choosing the direction of rotation
of the motor; and
a controller;
wherein the controller is configured to determine a
direction of rotation of the motor based on a characteristic of
the motor; and
wherein the characteristic of the motor is voltage.

16. A power tool comprising:
a motor configured to be rotatable in a forward direction
and a reverse direction;
a power source;

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Black & Decker Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

3
a reversing box located between the power source and the
motor such that the power source is at a first side of the
reversing box and the motor is at a second side of the reversing
box; and
a controller, the controller being operatively coupled to
the first side to receive a first side signal from the first side, the
controller also being operatively coupled to the second side to
provide a second side signal to the second side;
wherein power from the power source travels through the
reversing box, and the reversing box is configured to deliver
voltage of different polarities to the motor from the power
source by mechanically toggling a flow of the power through
the reversing box.
Claim 10 is also independent and recites a power tool where the
controller determines a direction of rotation of the motor based upon a motor
voltage signal. Id. at 20–21.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Velderman et al.
(hereinafter “Velderman”)
US 2012/0292067 A1 November 22, 2012
Hatfield et al.
(hereinafter “Hatfield”)
US 2013/0270932 A1 October 17, 2013
Kataoka et al.
(hereinafter “Kataoka”)
US 2015/0015104 A1 January 15, 2015
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Hatfield. Final Act. 2–3.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, and 17–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hatfield in view of
Kataoka. Final Act. 4–9.
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

4
3. The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hatfield, Kataoka, and Velderman. Final
Act. 9–11.

OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 16 as anticipated by Hatfield, the Examiner found
Hatfield discloses a power tool including a motor 104 configured to be
rotatable in a forward direction and a reverse direction, a power source
(battery pack 108), and controller (control unit 106). Final Act. 2, citing
Hatfield ¶¶ 34, 65, 69. The Examiner found Hatfield discloses a reversing
box (handle 112) between the power source 108 and motor 104, where the
reversing box is configured to deliver voltage of different polarities to the
motor from the power source by mechanically toggling (via the switch (input
unit 110) with trigger 902) a flow of the power though the reversing box. Id.
at 2–3, citing Hatfield ¶¶ 34, 77.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends element 112 of Hatfield is a handle of a drill, not a
reversing box. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues Hatfield does not disclose
the handle 112 is configured to deliver voltage of different polarities to the
motor from the power source by mechanically toggling flow of power. Id. at
13. Appellant argues Hatfield discloses the trigger switch 110 provides a
signal to a microcontroller 802 or control unit 106, and neither discloses
being configured to deliver voltage of different polarities by mechanically
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

5
toggling a flow of power through the reversing box as recited in claim 16.
Id.

Issue
Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that Hatfield discloses a reversing box as recited in claim 16?

Discussion
At the outset, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Hatfield’s handle 112 would not be considered a reversing box as recited in
claim 16. As the Examiner further explains in the Answer, the reversing box
is depicted as a rectangular box 130 in the drawings, and handle 112 in
Hatfield is also a rectangular box. Ans. 4; Fig. 3; Hatfield, Fig. 1. In this
regard, although the Specification describes that reversing boxes are
generally known, and provides an example thereof, neither claim 16 nor the
Specification provides any limitations as to the features of a reversing box
that would exclude Hatfield’s handle 112. Spec. ¶ 36; see Ans. 5.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Hatfield does
not disclose a reversing box that is configured to deliver a voltage of
different polarities by mechanically toggling a flow of power through the
reversing box. The Examiner explained in the Answer that handle 112, the
reversing box in Hatfield, inherently delivers voltage of different polarities
to the motor 104 from the power source 108 by mechanically toggling a flow
of power via switch 905 through controller 106 in handle 112. Ans. 5;
Hatfield ¶¶ 34, 35, 65, 77; Figs. 10B, 11, 13. Appellant has not sufficiently
explained why the Examiner’s position in this regard is in error. Claim 16
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

6
does not recite any particular requirements as to how the reversing box “is
configured to deliver voltage of different polarities to the motor from the
power source by mechanically toggling a flow of the power through the
reversing box.” Thus, we have not been provided with sufficient argument
or evidence that claim 16 excludes the arrangement in Hatfield as found by
the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.

Rejection 2
We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient to dispose of
this rejection.

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 over Hatfield and Kataoka, the Examiner found
Hatfield discloses a power tool including a motor, a tool holder, a user
operable trigger, a reversing switch for choosing the direction of the motor,
and a controller. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Hatfield does not
disclose the controller is configured to determine a direction of rotation of
the motor based on a characteristic of the motor and wherein the
characteristic of the motor is voltage. Id. The Examiner found Kataoka
discloses an actuator device having a brushless motor and a controller,
where the controller is configured to determine a direction of the motor,
based on a characteristic of the motor being voltage to control driving of the
actuator. Id. at 5, citing Kataoka ¶¶ 148, 187. The Examiner determined it
would have been obvious to modify Hatfield’s controller to determine a
direction of rotation of the motor based on a characteristic of the motor
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

7
being voltage to improve rotational accuracies of the actuator. Id. citing
Kataoka ¶ 47.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends Kataoka discloses controller 90 controls the
direction and speed of the rotation of the actuator by controlling the
amplitude, frequency, and the wave form of the current and the voltage to be
supplied to the actuator, but Kataoka does not disclose determining the
direction of rotation from the voltage. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant argues
that instead, Kataoka uses voltage to dictate the direction of the motor. Id. at
15. Appellant argues Kataoka discloses angle detectors that detect a
reluctance to determine rotating conditions of a rotating body, which is not a
disclosure of a controller that uses a voltage of the motor to determine a
direction rotation of the motor. Id.

Issue
Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious to have combined Hatfield and Kataoka to
arrive at a controller configured to determine a direction of rotation of the
motor based on a characteristic of the motor, where the characteristic of the
motor is voltage?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Kataoka discloses the
controller controls the direction and speed of the rotation of an actuator by
“controlling the amplitude, the frequency, and the waveform of the current
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

8
and the voltage to be supplied to the actuator.” Kataoka ¶ 148. Kataoka
discloses the controller causes a resolver-to-digital converter (RDC) to
convert detection signals into digital information that is used to determine
whether a work piece reached an instructed position. Id. Kataoka discloses
angle detectors detect reluctance between a resolver rotor and a resolver
stator, and that detection signal is converted into a digital signal, which is in
turn used by the CPU in the controller in controlling the actuator. Kataoka
¶ 187.
Thus, as argued by Appellant, Kataoka does not disclose voltage as
the condition of the motor used to determine the direction of rotation.
Rather, Kataoka utilizes the reluctance between the rotors as the condition of
the motor for this purpose. Although Kataoka does appear to control the
voltage to be supplied to the actuator as discussed above, the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how this disclosure means the electric signal
supplied from the RDC is voltage. Ans. 3–4, citing Kataoka ¶ 148.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 10, which similar to claim 1,
recites determining a direction of rotation of the motor that is a motor
voltage signal, because the Examiner relies on a similar rationale in rejecting
claim 10 (Final Act. 6–7), we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
as well.

Rejection 3
Claims 21 and 22 depend indirectly from claims 1 and 10,
respectively. The Examiner relies on a similar combination of Hatfield and
Kataoka, citing Velderman for disclosing an electronic switching module for
Appeal 2020-001386
Application 14/806,979

9
a power tool to turn off the motor in response to a motor current limit being
reached. Final Act. 9–11. Accordingly, Velderman does not make up for
the deficiencies in Hatfield and Kataoka discussed above. As a result, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16 102(a)(1) Hatfield 16
1–3, 5–10,
12–15, 17–
20
103 Hatfield, Kataoka 1–3, 5–10,
12–15, 17–
20
21, 22 103 Hatfield, Kataoka,
Velderman
21, 22
Overall
Outcome
16 1–3, 5–10,
12–15, 17–
22
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART