Ex Parte Schell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13654452 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2017)

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.
13/654,452 10/18/2012 Craig A. Schell 0275-001195/US/DVB 4323
76237 7590 08/29/2017
Harney Hi rice, v fo Pierre PT.f CStanlev R&TVl
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG A. SCHELL and MICHAEL K. FORSTER
Appeal 2015-006182
Application 13/654,452
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request)” of the Decision
on appeal entered July 17, 2017 (“Decision”) in this Application. The
Request seeks reconsideration of the Board’s affirmance of the rejection of
claims 25—43. Since the filing of the Request for reconsideration, the Board
has issued an Erratum. See Erratum mailed August 23, 2017.
Appellants first assert that the Board’s Decision was based on a new
ground of rejection which was undesignated. The Board’s Decision, as
corrected by the Erratum, renders this argument moot.
Appellants next argue that Yeghiazarians does not anticipate claim 25
because it does not cause “the motor to impart pulses of output torque to the
Appeal 2015-006182
Application 13/654,452
output shaft multiple times.” Request 3. Appellants also argue that such
imparting of pulses is not inherent in Yeghiazarians. Request 3^4. These
arguments are addressed in our Decision at pages 5—6.
Appellants also contend that Yeghiazarians does not pulse “in
response to a detected torque condition which may cause the tool operator to
lose control (i.e., ‘in response to detection [sic] rotational motion’).”
Request 3 (quoting Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)). There are at least two
flaws in this argument. First, it attempts to carry too much from the
Specification into claim 25 on the back of the phrase “in response to
detecting rotational motion.” Nothing in the Specification suggests this
phrase has the specific meaning Appellants now urge. Second, Appellants
did not make this argument in the Appeal Brief, in fact admitting that
Yeghiazarians “detect[s] sudden jamming of the rotating tool 8, which can
lead to a dangerous deflection of the tool about the axis 9.” Appeal Br. 11.
In view of the forgoing, we have not been apprised of any aspect of
Appellants’ argument that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.
DECISION
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
DENIED
2