Ex Parte Schenk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201714208750 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/208,750 03/13/2014 Peter Schenk 30659 7118 535 7590 KF ROSS PC 311 E York St Savannah, GA 31401-3814 EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3722 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): savannah@kfrpc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER SCHENK and CHRISTIAN THIEMANN Appeal 2017-000347 Application 14/208,7501 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 8, 9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mack (US 6,595,527 B2, iss. July 22, 2003) and Wightman et al. (US 3,712,632, iss. Jan. 23, 1973) (“Wightman ’632”) or Wightman et al. (US 3,727,931, iss. Apr. 17, 1973) (“Wightman ’931”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Roehm GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000347 Application 14/208,750 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced below. 1. A drill chuck comprising: a chuck body extending along an axis and having a rear end formed with a drive-spindle seat and a plurality of angularly spaced and axially extending but angled guide grooves; respective jaws axially displaceable in the grooves between an axially front and radially closely spaced closed position and an axially rear and radially less closely spaced open position, a each jaw having an inner edge adapted to grip a tool and an outer edge formed with external teeth, each jaw further having an axially rearwardly directed rear face extending at an acute angle to a plane perpendicular to the axis and inclined axially forward from the outer edge toward the inner edge, each jaw being formed on the respective rear face at the respective outer edge with an axially rearwardly projecting bump; a ring rotatable on the body about the axis and having an internal screwthread meshing with the teeth; an adjustment sleeve rotationally coupled to the ring and rotatable to move the jaws between the open and closed positions; and a cover disk on the rear end of the body and formed with respective throughgoing chip-discharge holes each having an inner end aligned with a respective one of the grooves and an outwardly open outer end, the bumps being fittable in the inner ends of the respective holes in a fully open position of the jaws such that during drilling chips in the grooves are urged radially outward and axially rearward by centrifugal force and, in the fully open position of the jaws, are pushed by the bumps out through the holes. ANALYSIS The drill chuck of claim 1 requires jaws, where the rear face of each jaw has an axially rearwardly projecting bump, and a cover disk having 2 Appeal 2017-000347 Application 14/208,750 chip-discharge holes. Appeal Br., Claims App. Additionally, claim 1 recites, “the bumps being fittable in the inner ends of the respective holes in a fully open position of the jaws such that during drilling chips in the grooves are urged radially outward and axially rearward by centrifugal force.” Id. Simply put, claim 1 requires, among other things, that the bump on the rear face of each jaw be able to be fit into the inner ends of the holes in the cover disk. See id. For example, the Specification of the instant application describes that particle-conveying bumps 15 of jaws 6 are able to fit into chip-discharge holes 14 of cover disk 12. See Spec. 7,11. 6-11, 8,11. 24-29, Figs. 1-4. The Examiner finds that Mack discloses a drill chuck having jaws 11 and rear cover plate (disk) 15 with three axially through-going holes 16. Final Act. 6-7; see Mack, col. 3,11. 3-5, Figs. 1-2. Mack discloses that particles generated by drilling, which work their way into the drill chuck by way of recess 14 and guides passages 10, are driven centrifugally out of holes 16. Mack, col. 2,1. 64 - 3,1. 17, Figs. 1-2. The Examiner also finds that Mack’s jaws 11 lack bumps as required by claim 1. See Final Act. 7. As such, the Examiner does not find that Mack discloses a bump on the rear face of each jaw that is able to be fit into the inner ends of the holes in the cover disk. The Examiner relies on Wightman ’632 or, alternatively, Wightman ’931, to remedy this deficiency of Mack with regard to the subject matter of claim 1. Here, the Examiner finds that jaws 32 — of Wightman ’632 and Wightman ’931 — have bumps, and the modification of Mack’s jaws 11 with the teachings of Wightman ’632 or Wightman ’931 results in Mack’s jaws 11 having bumps that are able to be fit into the inner ends of holes 16 in 3 Appeal 2017-000347 Application 14/208,750 cover disk 15. See Final Act. 2, 7-8; Ans. 11. In other words, “when the rear face of Wightman is combined with the jaws of Mack, the bump[s] align[] axially with the chip-discharge holes and pushes chips out of said holes.” Final Act. 7. The Appellants argue that “[tjhere is no disclosure in either reference of using a bump fittable into a hole” and “the pointed rear ends of the Wightman jaws would not fit in the holes 16 of Mack.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Moreover, “[tjhere is no suggestion in any of the cited references of providing on the rear faces of the jaws respective bumps that fit in the inner ends of the respective chip-discharge holes to physically push out any particles that get into the jaw guides.” Appeal Br. 8. We are persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1. The rear face and teeth 12 of Mack’s jaws 11 fail to extend to the inner ends of holes 16. Indeed, with respect to axis 9 (i.e., longitudinal axis of Mack’s drill chuck), the inner ends of holes 16 are offset radially outwards from the rear face and teeth 12 of jaws 11. See Mack, Fig. 1. The Examiner identifies Wightman ’632’s and Wightman ’931’s “bumps” as the apex of the rear face of each jaw 32. Final Act. 2. With respect to the longitudinal axis of Wightman ’632’s and Wightman ’931’s drill chucks, the apex of the rear face of each jaw 32 is set radially inward of jaws 32’s sectional screw threads 34 (i.e., teeth). As such, the combined teachings of Mack and Wightman ’632 or Wightman ’931 would result in a bump set radially inward on the rear face of Mack’s jaws 11, i.e., the bump would be set away from Mack’s hole 16. Accordingly, we fail to understand how a skilled artisan armed with the teachings of Mack, Wightman ’632, and 4 Appeal 2017-000347 Application 14/208,750 Wightman ’931 would have been combined to result in a bump on the rear face of each of Mack’s jaws 11 which is able to be fit into the inner ends of holes 16 of cover disk 15. Rather, such a conclusion appears to be the result of impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 8. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-15 as unpatentable over Mack and Wightman ’632 or Wightman ’931. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 8, 9, and 11-15. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation