11271322 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011)

Ex Parte Kleine et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 8, 2011

11271322 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 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. 11/271,322 11/10/2005 Werner Kleine 207,228 8564 38137 7590 09/09/2011 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB 666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017 EXAMINER GATES, ERIC ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2011 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 WERNER KLEINE and WERNER BRITTEN ____________________ Appeal 2009-011436 Application 11/271,322 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011436 Application 11/271,322 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Werner Kleine and Werner Britten (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 3 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a hammer drill chuck having a radially displaceable locking member (Spec. 2:3-5). Claim 5, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 5. A chuck, comprising a hollow cylindrical receiving sleeve (3) having a guide diameter (D) and at least two, opposite, rotation transmitting, strip-shaped webs (4a, 4b) projecting radially inward and having contact surfaces (5); and at least one locking member (2) radially displaceable through a radial opening formed in the receiving sleeve, a receiving side end of the rotation transmitting webs (4a, 4b) being spaced from a receiving side edge of the radial opening (6) by a distance (X) 1.5 times greater than the guide diameter (D), wherein the sum of contact surfaces (5) of the rotation transmitting webs (4a, 4b) is determined by an equation: Ʃ = 2LH = 2 (3D) (.15D) = .9D^2 wherein: L - is a length of a rotation transmitting web; H - is a height of the rotation transmitting web; and D - is the guide diameter of the receiving sleeve. Appeal 2009-011436 Application 11/271,322 3 THE REJECTION The following rejection by the Examiner is before us for review: Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wanner (US 4,107,949, issued Aug. 22, 1978). ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the teachings of Wanner would have rendered obvious a chuck having dimensions defined by an equation, as called for in independent claim 5 (App. Br. 4). ANALYSIS Claim 5 calls for, inter alia, L as being a length of a rotation transmitting web, wherein L=.45D^2/H. The Examiner found that in Wanner, bore 4 is a hollow cylindrical receiving sleeve and ridge 11 is a rotation transmitting web (Ans. 3) (bold added). Appellants contend that Wanner does not describe transmitting web (ridge) 11 as having a length (L) equal to three times the guide diameter (3D) of a receiving sleeve, as called for in independent claim 5 (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner found that “[a]s can be seen from figure 1, L is approximately 2.22D,” that is, the length of the rotation transmitting web (ridge) 11 is approximately equal to 2.22 times the diameter of the receiving sleeve (bore) 4 (Ans. 3-4) (bold added). Appeal 2009-011436 Application 11/271,322 4 Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly relied on the rough measurements taken from Wanner’s drawings to support the rejection of the claims (App. Br. 6). The Examiner opined that he “has not relied on the drawing measurements [of Wanner] to prove that the dimensions are exactly the same as Appellants, [but] only to show that they are close enough that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have discovered these dimensions” (Ans. 5). The Examiner concluded that “while Wanner et al. does not disclose the equation set forth in claim 5, it would have only been necessary to modify one variable in the equation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a chuck with dimensions that meet the requirements of the equation (id.). The Examiner concluded that “these measurements [that is, the measurements taken from Wanner’s drawings] have only been used to show that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify them to obtain an optimum value” (Ans. 6). We find that Wanner is silent as to size of the rotation transmitting web (ridge) 11. Thus, Wanner’s patent drawings may not be relied on to show particular sizes, that is, the size of the rotation transmitting web (ridge) 11. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”); see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written Appeal 2009-011436 Application 11/271,322 5 description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”). Further, since Wanner’s patent drawings may not be relied on to show particular sizes, we conclude that the Examiner’s optimization rationale, which is based on the drawing sizes is inadequate (see Ans. 4). We reverse the rejection of independent claim 5 and dependent claim 3. CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in concluding that the teachings of Wanner would have rendered obvious a chuck having dimensions defined by an equation, as called for in independent claim 5. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 and 5 is reversed. REVERSED mls