Black & Decker Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2021

2020006499 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2021)

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.
14/928,470 10/30/2015 Jason F. Busscharet TN-14388A 7517
28268 7590 12/21/2021
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
701 East Joppa Road, MR045
Towson, MD 21286
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGNESHKUMAR C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2021 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 JASON F. BUSSCHARET, CRAIG A. SCHELL, and
CHRISTOPHER HERRMANN
_____________

Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, the real party in interest
is Black & Decker (US) Inc. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to a system for
positioning and enhancing the operation of power tools. Spec., ¶ 2.

Representative Independent Claim 1
1. A system for facilitating a tool operation, comprising:
a tool;
a remotely locatable device positioned on the tool;
a computing device capable of determining a point
location of the remotely locatable device relative to the
computing device, the computing device also receiving and
storing data representing construction plans which include at
least one work point location where the tool is to perform a
construction operation; the computing device compares the
position of the remotely located device to the at least one work
point location of the construction plans;
a support member for supporting and automatically
positioning the tool relative to the support, the support member
including a signal receiver for receiving a signal from the
computer device;
wherein the support member is signaled to move the tool
or the remotely locatable device toward the at least one work
point location.

Appeal Br. 11, Claims App., disputed limitation emphasized.

2 We herein refer to the Non-Final Office Action, mailed Apr. 26, 2019
(“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Oct. 17, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 5, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

3
Rejections and References
Claims 1–5, 8–14, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nishita (US 2012/0272537 A1; Nov. 1, 2012) in
view of Fumio (JP2005315770 (A); Nov. 10, 2005).
Claims 6–7 and 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishita in view of Fumio, and further in view of Sakimura
(US 2008/0074638 A1; Mar. 27, 2008).

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the principal and
dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary claim
1 turns on whether the combination of Nishita and Fumio teaches the claim
limitations “a support member for supporting and automatically positioning
the tool relative to the support” and “wherein the support member is signaled
to move the tool or the remotely locatable device toward the at least one
work point location” (hereinafter “the disputed automatically positioning
limitation”). Appeal Br. 8–10. Independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar
subject matter.4
We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Non-Final
Office Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
decision reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer for the specific
reasons discussed below. We highlight the following for emphasis.

4 Appellant did not provide separate, substantive arguments with respect to
the patentability of claims 2–19.
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

4
Appellant contends Nishita does not teach the disputed automatically
positioning limitation. Appeal Br. 8–10. In particular, Appellant contends:
Nishita’s tool 1 is basically a single element that cannot move or
be positioned without complete dependence on the user.
Therefore, there is nothing automatic about the movement or
positioning of the Nishita system. In contrast, the claimed
invention includes a support capable of positioning tool 200
relative to support member 500 automatically (e.g., via
motorized movement). Second, Nishita’s survey setting point
indication device 1 does not include any relatively moving parts.
Therefore, even if tool 1 included a capability of automatic
positioning there is no element that can be automatically moved
relative to a separate element.
Appeal Br. 10.

The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Nishita and has
provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts
of the reference for disclosing the disputed automatically positioning
limitation (Ans. 4, 5).
In particular, the Examiner finds:
As per the Fig. 1 the survey setting point indicating device 1
includes the [] support member 3 with rod-like shape, a guiding
system 4, and a prism device 5 (interpreted as remotely locatable
device) (Fig. 1, Para. [0042]). Also the guiding system 4 is
provided at an upper end of the support member 3 and extends in
a horizontal direction at a right angle with respect to the support
member 3. Nishita also disclose the control unit 19 controls an
orientation (a posture) and a movement of the MEMS mirror 18
based on the tilting detection result from the tilting sensor 15 and
the above-described information. By the fact that the posture and
movement of the MEMS mirror 18 are controlled, the projecting
direction of the laser beam 17 and the movement of the laser
beam 17 are controlled. As per Fig. 2, mirror 18 is a sub part of
prism 5 which is a part of the survey setting point indicating
device 1 (Para. [0056], Fig. 2). Also as per Para. [0057], the
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

5
control unit 19 controls the movement of the MEMS mirror 18
based on the selected control pattern so that the trajectory of a
point projected by the laser beam 17 moves in a predetermined
pattern. Hence the Nishita clearly disclose the claimed limitation
of automatically positioning the tool relative to the support
member.
Ans. 4 (original emphases removed, panel’s emphases added).

In other words, Nishita teaches or suggests the disputed automatically
positioning limitation because control unit 19 of Nishita provides the
claimed “automatically positioning” function. Id. (Citing Nishita ¶¶ 56 and
57).
As an initial matter of claim construction, we turn to the Specification
for context, and find no explicit definition for the claim term “automatically
positioning.” Claim 1 (emphasis added).
The Specification discloses:
As an alternative to a worker manually moving the base
from one task location to the next and in order to increase the
range within which automatic positioning can take place, the
entire base may be supported on motorized tracks 555 like a
vehicle so that the base can automatically be roughly moved to a
new position on the worksite deck. When the base is a vehicle
the base can receive a position signal and the vehicle can be
automatically repositioned to a location that covers additional
desired tool locations.
Spec. ¶ 55.
Given the absence of a limiting definition in the claim or Specification
regarding the disputed automatically positioning limitation, on this record,
we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading is overly broad, unreasonable,
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

6
or inconsistent with the Specification.5 Based on our review of Nishita and
consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 4, 5), we interpret the
disputed automatically positioning limitation using the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure – to be met by Nishita’s
control unit feature. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We note that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s
responses to Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive
rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference.
On this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we
are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s finding of obviousness
regarding the rejection of independent representative claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1 and the rejection of grouped independent
claims 10 and 19, which recite similar limitations of commensurate scope.
The remaining grouped dependent claims also rejected (and not argued
separately) fall with their respective independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred with respect to the

5 We emphasize that, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their
scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appeal 2020-006499
Application 14/928,470

7
obviousness rejections of claims 1–19, over the cited prior art of record, and
we sustain the rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–
14, 17–19
103 Nishita, Fumio 1–5, 8–14,
17–19

6, 7, 15,
16
103 Nishita, Fumio,
Sakimura
6, 7, 15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–19

FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED