Ex Parte Gumpert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12836635 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/836,635 07/15/2010
28268 7590 02/17/2016
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rene Gumpert
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PR-1208 2630
EXAMINER
JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CROSSAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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 RENE GUMPERT and HEINZ-WERNER F AATZ
Appeal2014-000625
Application 12/836,635
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rene Gumpert and Heinz-Werner Faatz (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-
13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a motor driven hammer.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
Appeal2014-000625
Application 12/836,635
1. Motor driven hammer comprising: a housing, a motor
having a motor shaft and being arranged in the housing, a
hammer mechanism including a cylinder in which a ram is
arranged, the ram being slidable along a longitudinal axis of the
cylinder and a tool holder which may support a tool bit so that
the tool bit is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the cylinder,
wherein the motor is coupled with the hammer mechanism, so
that rotation of the motor shaft results in a reciprocating
movement of the ram within the cylinder, the ram applying
impacts on a tool bit supported by the tool holder during the
reciprocating movement wherein, the ram is made at least
partially of a paramagnetic material, a ferromagnetic material or
a permanent magnet material, a coil arranged within the
housing adjacent to the cylinder, a control unit connected with
the coil, and wherein the control unit is adapted to apply a
current to the coil so that the coil applies a force to the ram in
the direction of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder during the
reciprocating movement of the ram.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 3, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plietsch (US 6,739,405 B2, issued May 25, 2004) and DeMichelis (US
6,201,362 Bl, issued Mar. 13, 2001);
(ii) claims 4--11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Plietsch, DeMichelis, and Zahner (US 2005/0194420 Al, published Sept. 8,
2005); and
(iii) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Plietsch, DeMichelis, and Geiger (US 2002/0014344 Al, published Feb. 7,
2002).
2
Appeal2014-000625
Application 12/836,635
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, and 12--0bviousness--Plietsch/DeMichelis
The Examiner finds that Plietsch discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, including "ram ( 10) ... , the ram ( 10) being slidable along a
longitudinal axis of the cylinder," and "wherein the motor (6) is coupled
with the hammer mechanism ... , so that rotation of the motor shaft (7)
results in a reciprocating movement of the ram (10) within the cylinder."
Final Act. 2, citing Plietsch, col. 2, 11. 47, 53-55, and 60-67; Fig. 1. The
Examiner relies on DeMichelis as teaching a "ram ( 14) ... being made at
least [of] a ferromagnetic material and a coil (2) arranged within the housing
(7) adjacent to the cylinder (1) for the purpose of the coil (2) applying a
force induced by the electromagnet (2) to the ram (14) in the axial
direction." Id. at 3, citing DeMichelis, col. 5, 1. 4; Fig. 2. The Examiner's
position is that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art "to modify the invention of Plietsch with the teachings of DeMichelis
in order to maintain the power being supplied to the motor, while altering
the force being applied to the ram." Id.
Appellants argue that "none of the references contemplate both a
motor and a coil," and as such no combination of the references suggests a
hammer "including a control unit connected with a coil, and wherein the
control unit is adapted to apply a current to the coil so that the coil applies a
force to the ram in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder
during the reciprocating movement of the ram." Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants assert that the Examiner's reason for combining the teachings of
Plietsch and DeMichelis is "taken directly from Applicant's specification at
paragraphs [0005] and [0006]," and that, "if not for the privilege of
3
Appeal2014-000625
Application 12/836,635
hindsight, and if these portions of Applicant's specification were unavailable
to the Examiner, it would be inconceivable that the Examiner would arrive
at" the claimed invention. Id. at 9, 10.
The reason proffered by the Examiner to modify the teachings of
Plietsch, i.e., "to maintain the power being supplied to the motor, while
altering the force being applied to the ram," is insufficient to explain why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the
device of Plietsch. In this regard, although we appreciate the Examiner's
position that combining a coil and a motor is well known in general (see
Ans. 4), nonetheless, the force applied to the ram of DeMichelis is simply to
raise a ram into position against gravitational force, and not to alter a force
applied in driving a ram to either enhance or retard/brake the force applied
by some other agent, such as a motor. Specifically, DeMichelis teaches that
when "coil 2 is no longer excited ... the mass 14 begins to drop freely under
drive from its own weight,'' and because resistor Ra limits the induced
current, mass 14 is not braked and thus, "mass 14 then strikes the anvil 13
with maximum force." DeMichelis col. 7, 11. 53---65. The operation of the
DeMichelis device, in which the force of the ram in striking mode is left
unaltered, thus has virtually no relevance to the Examiner's stated reason to
combine. Moreover, the Examiner has not provided any findings that
Plietsch recognized a problem with the known way of altering force, i.e.,
increasing power to the motor. See Br. 10. Absent hindsight, we fail to see
why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the
teachings of DeMichelis to modify the device of Plietsch in the manner
proposed by the Examiner. The rejection of independent claim 1, and of
4
Appeal2014-000625
Application 12/836,635
claims 3 and 12 depending therefrom, as being unpatentable over Plietsch
and DeMichelis, is thus not sustained.
Claims 4-11--0bviousness--Plietsch/DeMichelis/Zahner
The Examiner does not rely on Zahner in any manner that overcomes
the improper combination of the teachings of Plietsch and DeMichelis as
discussed above in relation to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 4--11 is not sustained.
Claim 13--0bviousness--Plietsch/DeMichelis/Geiger
Independent claim 13, includes a similar limitation to claim 1, and
recites that "the coil applies a force to the ram toward the tool holder during
the reciprocating movement of the ram." Br. 14--15, Claims App'x. For the
same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combined
teachings of Plietsch and DeMichelis do not suggest this limitation. The
Examiner does not rely on Geiger in any manner that overcomes the
improper combination of the teachings of Plietsch and DeMichelis as
discussed above in relation to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 13 is not sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
Ssc
5