Ex Parte Duesselberg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2011

11220112 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2011)

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.
11/220,112 09/06/2005 Achim Duesselberg 3380 2300
7590 03/25/2011
STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
EXAMINER
CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ACHIM DUESSELBERG and KURT SIEBER
____________________

Appeal 2009-008911
Application 11/220,112
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008911
Application 11/220,112

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Achim Duesselberg and Kurt Sieber (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7. Claims
2-5 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A portable power tool, comprising:
a housing;
a rotating sleeve provided for rotatably driving a tool and
rotatably supported in said housing by at least one bearing;
a driving gear-wheel installed on said rotating sleeve in a
freely rotating manner and drivable by a motor;
a safety clutch that couples said driving gear-wheel with
said rotating sleeve in a torque-transmitting manner, wherein
said safety clutch has two clutch members that are slippable,
with one of said clutch members being assigned to said driving
gear-wheel in a torque-transmitting manner and the other clutch
member being assigned to said rotating sleeve in a torque
transmitting manner, and with a coupling spring providing a
force against which said clutch members can be overlatched
when a limit torque is exceeded, said bearing being seated on
said rotating sleeve in an axially displaceable manner and said
bearing being braced against an axial stop on said rotating
sleeve by said coupling spring of said safety clutch,
further comprising a spring plate, said coupling spring
being configured as a coil compression spring slid onto said
rotating sleeve, said coil compression spring bearing against
one of said clutch members with one end and against an outer
diameter of one abutting surface of said spring plate at the
other end;
2
Appeal 2009-008911
Application 11/220,112

further comprising a contact shoulder on said rotating
sleeve, said spring plate being located between said bearing and
said contact shoulder of said rotating sleeve,
wherein said bearing is configured as a roller bearing
with a bearing outer ring that bears radially against said housing
and a bearing inner ring seated on said rotating sleeve in a
sliding manner,
said bearing inner ring being loaded by said
compression spring and an inner diameter of another abutting
face of said spring plate against said axial stop of said rotating
sleeve,
and wherein said rotating sleeve has an annular groove,
said axial stop of said rotating sleeve being formed by a
retaining ring which is situated in said annular groove of said
rotating sleeve.

THE REJECTION
Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 5,320,177,
issued June 14, 1994) and Bereiter (US 4,366,869, issued Jan. 4, 1983).

OPINION
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify
Shibata’s tool in view of Bereiter’s component arrangement so as to have the
claimed spring plate and bearing arrangement. Ans. 4. Appellants assert
that Bereiter’s spring does not rotate and that this is due to the difference
between Bereiter’s arrangement and the claimed spring/spring plate/bearing
arrangement. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that Bereiter does not disclose
“an arrangement of the compression spring, in particular support against an
inner bearing ring ….” Id. at 7-8. Appellants argue that Bereiter’s shoulder
3
Appeal 2009-008911
Application 11/220,112

ring 59 (found to be the claimed spring plate, and against which the spring
58 bears) is arranged with its second end against an outer bearing ring of
bearing 18 and that this outer bearing ring is fixed to the housing. Id. at 7.
Thus, an issue raised by Appellants’ argument is whether the Examiner erred
in finding that Bereiter discloses the claimed spring plate and bearing
arrangement.
Claim 1 calls for a spring plate having two abutting surfaces/faces,
with the compression spring bearing against an outer diameter of one
abutting surface. The other abutting face, along with the spring, loads the
inner ring of the bearing against the axial stop of the rotating sleeve.
Specifically, the claim recites:
said bearing inner ring being loaded by said compression spring
and an inner diameter of another abutting face of said spring
plate against said axial stop of said rotating sleeve ….
Regarding this feature, the Examiner finds that Bereiter’s shoulder
ring 59 corresponds to Appellants’ spring plate, and that:
[Bereiter’s] bearing (18) inner end[1] is being loaded by the
compression spring (58) and an inner diameter of another
abutting face of the spring plate against an axial stop (61) of the
rotating sleeve.
Ans. 4; see Bereiter, col. 5, ll. 58-61.
An enlarged portion of Figure 1 of Bereiter is reproduced below with
pertinent element numbers circled:

1 The claim calls for the bearing inner ring, not the inner end, to be loaded.
It is not clear whether the Examiner’s finding contains a typographical error
or whether the Examiner misunderstood the claim to merely require loading
of the inner end of the bearing, i.e., the end facing the spring and other
internal elements of the tool as opposed to the end facing the tool bit.
4
Appeal 2009-008911
Application 11/220,112

Figure 1 depicts an axially extending sectional view of the forward end of a
hammer drill, and the enlarged portion shows part of the lower housing with
the arrangement of the spring 58, shoulder ring 59, bearing 18, and fastener
ring 61. Bereiter, col. 3, ll. 54-55; col. 5, ll. 55-61.
This Figure 1 shows the outer diameter of the shoulder ring 59
contacting the outer ring of the bearing 18, and shows a gap between the
shoulder ring inner diameter and the bearing inner ring. See also Bereiter,
Fig. 3. As such, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Bereiter discloses the claimed “bearing inner ring being loaded by … an
inner diameter of another abutting face of said spring plate.” The Examiner
does not adequately explain why the claimed subject matter having this
feature would have been obvious. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or of claims 6 and 7 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6, and 7 is reversed.
REVERSED

mls
5