Ex Parte Jung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 1, 201412357152 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/357,152 01/21/2009 Achim Jung P-US-PR-1129B 1136 28268 7590 10/02/2014 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION 701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199 TOWSON, MD 21286 EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2014 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 ACHIM JUNG, RENE JAGER, and IAN S. BELL ____________ Appeal 2012-007557 Application 12/357,1521 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–13. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Black & Decker Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-007557 Application 12/357,152 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter at issue in this appeal. 1. An actuation apparatus for a multi-mode power tool having a housing, a motor with a rotary output shaft disposed in the housing, drive means for driving a working member of the tool in response to rotation of said rotary output shaft, and a trigger disposed on the housing to enable activation of said motor, the actuation apparatus comprising: a mode control switch adapted for enabling a user to select between a first mode of operation in which the working member has a first action and a second mode of operation in which the working member has a second action; a mode selection sensor for providing a signal indicating which of the first mode or second mode of operation of the tool has been selected; and a control circuit for controlling operation of the motor in response to the signal, such that when in the first mode of operation where the working member has a first action, the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression and release of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation where the working member has a second action, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed. App. Br. 12. Rejections Claims 1–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barker (US 5,105,130, issued Apr. 14, 1992) in view of Fisher (US 6,150,632, issued Nov. 21, 2000). Appeal 2012-007557 Application 12/357,152 3 ANALYSIS Rejections of Claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds that Barker discloses all elements of independent claim 1, except for the following element of claim 1 directed to a control circuit that operates to control the motor: such that when in the first mode of operation where the working member has a first action, the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression and release of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation where the working member has a second action, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Fisher discloses a power tool with a control circuit that controls a motor “such that when in the first mode of operation[,] the motor (not shown) is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed (col. 3, lines 9–28).” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Barker’s control circuit: such that when in the first mode of operation the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed for the purpose of providing an easy transition between short and long welds. Id. at 5–6. Appellants argue that Barker “does not teach a tool which chooses a particular lock-on mode . . . ‘in response to’ a choice of working member operating mode (e.g., drill mode, hammer mode, etc.).” App. Br. 5–6 Appeal 2012-007557 Application 12/357,152 4 (emphasis in original). Appellants concede that Fisher teaches a switch that can be used to manually select either a normal mode (i.e., a mode where the motor is only activated when the trigger is depressed) or a lock-on mode (i.e., a mode where a trigger pull activates the motor, and the motor remains energized until deactivated by a second pull of the trigger). Id. at 8. However, Appellants argue that Fisher does not teach the lock-on/non-lock- on modes being determined in response to a choice of working member mode as required by claim 1. Id. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner indicates that Barker discloses all the structural elements of the actuation apparatus, and clarifies that Fisher was chosen to show Appellants that it was known in the art to control a motor “such that when in the first mode of operation the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed.” Ans. 11, 12. The Examiner further indicates that the prior art teaches an advantage of locking-on the trigger to ease the hand of the user from holding continuously, and determines that this teaching provides a sufficient rationale for incorporating Fisher’s lock-on facilities into Barker’s controller. Id. at 12. The Examiner’s response, however, does not directly address Appellants’ argument that the prior art does not disclose a tool in which the working member has multiple modes of operation, and a control circuit places the trigger in lock-on or non-lock-on mode in response to a signal indicating the working member’s mode of operation. Lock-on mode switch 22 of Fisher is a manual switch. Although the Examiner has Appeal 2012-007557 Application 12/357,152 5 provided a rationale for incorporating the manual lock-on mode switch of Fisher into Barker’s controller, the Examiner has not shown that it would have been obvious to also include a control circuit that places the trigger in lock-on mode or non-lock-on mode in response to a signal indicating the working member’s mode of operation. In other words, Fisher discloses two trigger lock modes and Barker discloses two operation modes, but claim 1 requires that one trigger lock mode correspond to one operation mode, and that the other trigger lock mode correspond to a second operation mode. The Examiner’s articulated rationale does not address the trigger lock mode to operation mode correlation required by independent claim 1. We, therefore, find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive, and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The other independent claims — claims 3, 11, and 13 — all require a control circuit or control means that places the trigger in lock-on mode and/or non-lock-on mode in response to a signal that indicates the mode of operation of the tool or working member. App. Br. 13–16. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 11, and 13. The remaining claims at issue in this appeal — claims 2, 4–10, and 12 — all depend from, and incorporate the limitations of, independent claims 1, 3, 11, or 13. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4–10, and 12. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13. REVERSED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation