Ex Parte Ohlendorf

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 14, 2011

11800487 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 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.
11/800,487 05/03/2007 Oliver Ohlendorf 208,219 8944
38137 7590 12/15/2011
ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB
666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
EXAMINER
TRUONG, THANH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2011 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 OLIVER OHLENDORF
____________

Appeal 2009-014844
Application 11/800,487
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014844
Application 11/800,487

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Oliver Ohlendorf (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Unterschweiger (US 3,741,317, issued Jun. 26, 1973). Claim
5 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a percussion hand-held power tool 1
with a chuck 3 for receiving a percussion working tool 2. Spec. 3, ll. 6-7
and fig. 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A hand-held power tool, comprising an outer housing (6);
a work spindle (4) located in the outer housing (6); a chuck (3)
for receiving an axially displaceable, within limits, percussion
working tool (2) and mounted on the work spindle (4), the work
spindle (4) including a coaxial die (5) located in an interior
thereof for imparting blows to the percussion working tool (2);
at least one cooling air channel (7) extending in the outer
housing (6) radially outwardly of the work spindle and opening
into a free space (8) of the chuck (3) which adjoins the work
spindle (4) and communicates with the interior of the work
spindle through at least one opening (10, 10') formed in the
work spindle (4); and a seal (9, 9') circumferentially
surrounding an annular gap (11) that adjoins the free space (8)
and is formed between the outer housing (6) and the chuck (3)
for completely flowtight sealing the free space (8) outwardly.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2009-014844
Application 11/800,487

3
OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a work spindle, a chuck, and
a free space of the chuck. App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner found
that (1) tool holder 22 and cylinder 15 of Unterschweiger, collectively,
constitute the “work spindle”; (2) sleeve 24 of Unterschweiger constitutes
the “chuck”; and (3) impact transmission zone 39 of Unterschweiger
constitutes the “free space” of chuck 24. Ans. 3-4. See also
Unterschweiger, figs. 1-2.
Appellant argues that because space 39 of Unterschweiger forms the
interior of spindle 15, 22, Unterschweiger fails to teach a free space of the
chuck, as called for by claim 1. Reply Br. 2. We agree.
In this case, Unterschweiger specifically teaches that impact
transmission zone 39 is located at the forward end of cylinder 15 between
shank 18b of the percussion piston 18 and shank 21 of tool 20. See
Unterschweiger, col. 4, ll. 39-42 and figs. 1-2. As such, we find that impact
transmission zone 39 of Unterschweiger forms a “free space” of work
spindle 15, 22 of Unterschweiger (see figs. 1 and 2), rather than a “free
space” of chuck 24, as called for by claim 1. Hence, we do not find that
impact transmission zone 39 of Unterschweiger constitutes a “free space” of
the chuck, as required by claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Unterschweiger cannot be sustained.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal 2009-014844
Application 11/800,487

4

mls