Ex Parte Dammertz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2014

11787297 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/787,297 04/16/2007 Ralph Dammertz 1576-0123 1435
28078 7590 05/30/2014
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2014 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 RALPH DAMMERTZ
____________

Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring an operating characteristic
of a hand power tool and harvesting energy from the motor of the hand
power tool (Spec. ¶ [0007]).
Claim 7, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
7. A method of monitoring at least one operating
characteristic of a hand power tool comprising:
harvesting energy from the motor of a hand power tool; and
storing data corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand
power tool in a memory using the harvested energy.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 7-10, 13-16, 21, 24-29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2006/0155582
A1; July 13, 2006) and Shearer (US 2006/0281435 A1; Dec. 14, 2006) (see
Ans. 5-15).
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 22, 23, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Shearer, and Asama
(US 5,929,778; July 27, 1999) (see Ans. 15-23).
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown, Shearer, and Hyatt (US 4,034,276; July 5, 1977)
(see Ans. 23-25).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being obvious over the
asserted combinations of references because those combinations do not teach
or suggest the disputed limitations recited in Appellant’s claims?

Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

3
ANALYSIS
We review the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions the Examiner erred. We refer herein to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief filed May 9, 2011 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed July
13, 2011 (“Ans.”), and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed September 13, 2011
(“Reply Br.”).
Claims 7-20
With respect to claims 7 and 9, Appellant argues Shearer does not
teach harvesting energy from a magnetic field associated with a motor of a
hand power tool (App. Br. 7-10, 14; Reply Br. 2-4). Specifically, Appellant
argues Shearer only teaches harvesting energy from two sources—ambient
energy from communication transmissions and directed RF energy—neither
of which is disclosed to be energy from the motor of a hand power tool
(App. Br. 9). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The energy sources
cited by Appellant are just examples provided in Shearer (see Shearer
¶ [0158] (“This type of RF . . . is usually generated to carry one way or two-
way combinations of voice, video and data communications. The sources
that the antenna can harvest from include, but are not limited to, . . . .”)
(emphasis added)). Shearer teaches more broadly harvesting RF energy
generally from the environment using an antenna (Shearer ¶ [0157]). The
Examiner finds it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention that the motor of a power tool emits an electromagnetic
field when in use and that this electromagnetic field is a form of RF energy
in the environment as taught by Shearer (Ans. 25-26). We agree with these
findings and the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

4
use the device of Shearer to harvest energy from the electromagnetic field
associated with a motor of a power tool (Ans. 25-26).
Appellant also argues Shearer does not teach storing data
corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand power tool in a memory
using the harvested energy1 (App. Br. 13-14). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. The Examiner explains Brown teaches storing data
corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand power tool in a memory and
Shearer teaches using harvested energy (Ans. 5). Appellant does not address
the combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim
limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Moreover, we
note Shearer teaches providing harvested energy to the core device 22
(Shearer ¶ [0120]), which includes a memory 38 (Shearer ¶ [0114]).
Appellant argues the Examiner fails to clearly articulate why it would
have been obvious to modify the power tool of Brown to include the RF
energy harvester of Shearer (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 5), Shearer expressly teaches
RF energy harvesting is applicable to a range of devices, including power
tools (Shearer ¶ [0183]-[0185]). Further, the Examiner shows some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the proposed
combination by explaining how providing additional energy to a power tool
using RF energy harvesting is a more efficient way of powering the device
(Ans. 26-27). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

1 Appellant argues this limitation for claim 9 (App. Br. 13-14), but admits
the disputed claim limitation actually appears in claim 7 (Reply Br. 4).
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

5
With respect to claim 13, Appellant argues Brown does not teach
sensing a condition of the hand power tool with an RFID member sensor
(App. Br. 16). Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensors
provided on an RFID member (App. Br. 16). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. The Examiner explains Shearer teaches an RFID member and
Brown teaches a sensor for sensing a condition of the hand power tool (Ans.
28). Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as
they apply to the disputed claim limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
With respect to claim 17, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach
sensing a rotating electromagnetic field with a component, harvesting energy
from the electromagnetic field using the component, and storing data
corresponding to the magnitude of the sensed rotating electromagnetic field
using the harvested energy (App. Br. 37-39). Appellant’s argument is
premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim term “component” (see,
e.g., App. Br. 38 (“FIG. 89 . . . clearly shows a harvester 20 that is separate
from the sensor 32 . . . .”)). We find the term “component” is not delimited
to the specific configuration Appellant proposes. For example, in Figure 89
of Shearer, the device 10 can be a “component” that includes both a
harvester 20 and a sensor 32 (Shearer Fig. 89). Appellant’s argument is also
premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim term “corresponding” (App.
Br. 37-39). We agree with the Examiner claim 17 does not require directly
storing the magnitude of the sensed electromagnetic field as long as the data
relates to the energy source (Ans. 30). As the Examiner explains (Ans. 23),
Shearer teaches a memory for storing data when the magnitude of the
electromagnetic field is sufficient to harvest energy (Shearer ¶ [0114]).
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

6
Based on our analysis above regarding claims 7, 9, 13, and 17, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no
separate arguments for claims 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20, and relies on the
same reasons for patentability stated for claims 7, 9, 13, and 17 (App. Br. 12,
15-17, 35, 39). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20.
Claims 21-27
With respect to claim 21, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach
harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field associated with the motor of
the hand power tool with a tag (App. Br. 18-19). Appellant’s argument that
Shearer does not teach harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field
associated with the motor of the hand power tool is not persuasive for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7. Appellant also argues
Shearer does not teach an energy harvester being part of a tag (App. Br. 18).
Appellant does not provide any particular definition for the claim term “tag”
(App. Br. 18), and Appellant’s disclosure in Figure 1 shows a tag 118 as
including a structure attached to a power tool. In that regard, Shearer
teaches the RF power harvester can be integrated directly into the form
factor of the device being powered (Shearer ¶ [0157]), which includes a
power tool (Shearer ¶ [0185]). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Shearer teaches the claimed tag.
With respect to claim 24, Appellant argues Brown does not teach
sensing a condition of the hand power tool with a sensor included in the tag
(App. Br. 20). Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensors
provided on a tag (App. Br. 20). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As
discussed above with respect to claims 13 and 21, Shearer teaches a tag, and
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

7
Brown teaches a sensor for sensing a condition of the hand power tool.
Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as they
apply to the disputed claim limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
For the reasons stated above regarding claims 21 and 24, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate
arguments for claims 22, 23, and 25-27, and relies on the same reasons for
patentability stated for claims 21 and 24 (App. Br. 21, 35). Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22, 23, and 25-27.
Claims 28-35
With respect to claim 28, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach
attaching a radio-frequency identification (RFID) film to the hand power
tool and harvesting energy from the motor of the hand power tool with a first
antenna located on the RFID film (App. Br. 22-23). Specifically, Appellant
argues the energy harvesting device in Shearer is not an RFID device
because an RFID device is commonly understood to mean a technology that
uses radio waves to transfer data from an electronic tag (Reply Br. 5). We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 28) that the energy harvesting device in
Shearer is an RFID device, even under Appellant’s definition. Although
Shearer does not expressly refer to an RFID device, it teaches a device with
similar functionality identified by Appellant. Namely, Shearer teaches an
energy harvesting device with an antenna for one-way or two-way
communication in the RF spectrum (Shearer ¶ [0157]), i.e., a technology that
uses radio waves to transfer data from a tag. Appellant also argues Shearer
does not teach applying an RFID film to a hand power tool (App. Br. 23).
As discussed above with respect to claim 21, Shearer teaches the RF energy
harvester can be integrated directly into the form factor of the device being
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

8
powered (Shearer ¶ [0157]), which includes a power tool (Shearer ¶ [0185]).
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 32, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach
sensing data corresponding to a sensed condition with a sensor located on
the RFID film (App. Br. 24-25). For the reasons discussed above with
respect to claims 24 and 28, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Based on the reasoning above regarding claims 28 and 32, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate
arguments for claims 29-31 and 33-35, and relies on the same reasons for
patentability stated for claims 28 and 32 (App. Br. 23-24, 35-36).
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 29-31 and
33-35.
Claims 1-6
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach a tag
mounted on the housing of a hand power tool including a first antenna for
harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field associated with the motor
(App. Br. 26-31). For the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claims 7 and 21, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues Brown does not teach the
first sensor is located within the housing and the signal indicative of the first
sensed condition is wirelessly transmitted to the tag (App. Br. 32-33).
Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not indicate the device 2010 is a
wireless receiver or the sensors 2016 are wireless transmitters (App. Br. 32).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner explains it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to transfer data from the sensors to a tag either with a wired or
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

9
wireless method (Ans. 18, 28). The Examiner also points to paragraph 59 of
Brown as indicating it is well-known that data transfers can be wired or
wireless (Ans. 18). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion, and thus we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
With respect to claim 6, Appellant argues Brown does not teach a
single antenna for harvesting energy and causing data associated with an
electromagnetic field to be stored within the memory (App. Br. 34).
Appellant’s argument is premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim
language. Claim 6 recites storing data associated with an electromagnetic
field sensed by the first antenna. Claim 6 does not require the antenna itself
provide the data being stored. The Examiner explains (Ans. 25-26, 29)
Shearer teaches an antenna for sensing an electromagnetic field and
harvesting energy (Shearer ¶ [0157]), and Brown teaches storing data from a
sensor in a memory (Brown ¶ [0040]). Appellant does not address the
combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim
limitation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. See Keller, 642
F.2d at 426.
For the reasons stated above regarding claims 1, 3, and 6, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate
arguments for claims 2, 4, and 5, and relies on the same reasons for
patentability stated for claims 1, 3, and 6 (App. Br. 31). Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, and 5.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-35 is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-001880
Application 11/787,297

10
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).

AFFIRMED
bar