13337199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

Ex Parte Eckert

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 2016

13337199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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. 2179-0049 2391 EXAMINER AKHTER, SHARMIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/337,199 12/26/2011 10800 7590 12/16/2016 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Martin Eckert 12/16/2016 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 MARTIN ECKERT Appeal 2016-004392 Application 13/337,199 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—8 and 10-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-004392 Application 13/337,199 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application “relates to an industrial and electrically driven tool for mobile use.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An industrial and electrically driven tool for mobile use, comprising: a housing having an integrated tool controller and an integrated first radio module for the tool controller to communicate with a device arranged remotely from the tool via a first radio network having predefined radio frequency range, wherein the housing comprises a second radio module and a changeover mechanism, the second radio module being configured to communicate via a second radio network having a different radio frequency range than the radio frequency range of the first radio module, the changeover mechanism being configured to monitor a transmission power of the first and second radio networks and to determine when the transmission power of the first and second radio networks is not adequate for operation of the first and second radio modules, respectively. REJECTIONS Claims 1—8 and 10—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0144552 Al; July 29, 2004), Ferguson et al. (US 2005/0267998 Al; Dec. 1, 2005), Stepanik et al. (US 7,080,544 B2; July 25, 2006), and Maguire et al. (US 2011/0285511 Al; Nov. 24, 2011). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites in relevant part “[a]n industrial and electrically driven tool for mobile use, comprising: a housing having ... an integrated first 2 Appeal 2016-004392 Application 13/337,199 radio module . . . wherein the housing comprises a second radio module.” App. Br. 9. Appellant argues “Ferguson does not disclose or suggest providing the first and second communication modules in a tool housing” because “Ferguson is not directed to a tool” but instead concerns “work machines.” Id. at 6. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. Appellant has not pointed to anything in the claims or the written description that precludes the recited “tool” from encompassing Ferguson’s “work machines.” Appellant simply asserts Ferguson does not concern “tools” without providing a construction of the term or any persuasive evidence or reasoning to support the assertion. See id. at 6—7. The written description indicates that although Appellant’s invention is particularly concerned with “a storage-battery- operated screwing tool,” the “tools” contemplated by the invention encompass a wide range of equipment. Specifically, the written description states “[t]he disclosure relates to an industrial and electrically driven tool for mobile use, particular a storage-battery operated screwing tool. Any other industrially used tool for which it is necessary to document the work steps would likewise be conceivable . . . .” Spec. 3 (emphasis added). Ferguson discloses examples of “work machines” that appear to fall within this broad conception of a “tool.” For example, Ferguson discloses “[w]ork machine, as the term is used herein refers to a fixed or mobile machine that performs some type of operation associated with a particular industry, such as mining, construction, farming, etc. . . . and any type of moveable machine that operates in a work environment.” Ferguson 116. In light of the broad description of “tool” in Appellant’s written description and Appellant’s 3 Appeal 2016-004392 Application 13/337,199 failure to provide persuasive evidence or reasoning to support this argument, we see no reason to disturb the Examiner’s rejection on this ground. Appellant also contends “Ferguson does not suggest a housing having multiple communication modules” because, in Appellant’s view, “Fergusson discloses a system in which multiple external communication modules may be connected to the system via ports.” App. Br. 7. Appellant argues “[tjhere is no disclosure or suggestion of incorporating multiple communication modules into a housing.” Id. Given this failure, Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to “provide[] any rationale for why it would be obvious to incorporate an additional radio module into the housing of Suzuki based on a reference, Ferguson, that does not disclose or suggest a tool, a tool hosing [sic], or the incorporation of two communication modules into a tool housing.” Id. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed above, we disagree that Ferguson fails to teach or suggest a “tool” within the meaning of the claims. Moreover, Ferguson discloses “a work machine 120 may include a communication module interface 202 for connecting one or more communication modules 121 to interface control system 126.” Ferguson 127 (italics added). As confirmed by Ferguson’s Figure 2, the communication modules reside with the work machine. See Ferguson Fig. 2, items labeled 121. Ferguson discloses that the communication modules “include[] one or more wireless antennae for facilitating wireless communication with remote off-board system 110” and “[t]he wireless communications may include satellite, cellular, infrared, and any other type of wireless communications that enables work machine 120 to wirelessly exchange information with an off-board system.” Id. ^ 19. 4 Appeal 2016-004392 Application 13/337,199 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Ferguson teaches a housing having multiple communication modules. For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for claims 2—8 and 10—18, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8 and 10—18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5