Ex Parte Gieger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2018

14297721 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/297,721 06/06/2014 Jeffrey S. Gieger
45740 7590 10/19/2018
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
ONE INDIANA SQUARE
SUITE 3500
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2023
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
577-981 (T&B 2545) 2384
EXAMINER
MALAKOOTI, IMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2018 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):
Taft-IP-Docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY S. GIEGER and CHARLES BIND I CS
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed
June 6, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated May 10, 2016 ("Final"); Appeal
Brief filed February 28, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated June 16,
2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed August 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The invention relates to "a device for [a] switchgear which can act as a
safety lockout to isolate the power to the switchgear and also provide a means to
mechanically prevent energizing and operation of the switchgear from a remote
location." Spec. ,r 3. The inventive device is illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced
below with annotations added by Appellant (Appeal Br. 8).
FlG;2
Figure 2 is a close-up view of the inventive safety lockout device. Spec. ,r 8.
The lockout device is mounted onto a switchgear, identified as motor box 4 in
Figure 2. Id. ,r 11. The lockout device includes ball limit switch 10, slideable bar
2 Appellant is the Applicant, and the real party in interest: Thomas & Betts
International, LLC. Appeal Br. 4.
2
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
16, and mechanical blocking arm 12. See id. ,r 13. Slideable bar 16 is linearly
movable to a first position in which one end of bar 16 covers and depresses ball
limit switch 10 to close the electrical motor circuit and energize the switchgear. Id.
Slideable bar 16 is linearly movable to a second position, shown in Figure 2, in
which ball limit switch 10 is exposed and no longer depressed, thereby interrupting
power to the motor circuit. Id. ,r 14. As illustrated in Figure 2, blocking arm 12 is
mounted on a portion of motor shaft 14 that extends outside the periphery of motor
box 4. Id. ,r 13. Blocking arm 12 rotates with motor shaft 14. Id. ,r 14. In the first
position, slideable bar 16 is moved out of engagement with blocking arm 12 to
allow normal operation of the switchgear. Id. ,r 13. In the second position,
slideable bar 16 moves linearly past the sidewall of motor box 4 to engage
blocking arm 12 in the event that the motor is unintentionally energized, e.g., by a
remote switch (not shown). Id. ,r 14. In other words, in the second position, the
motor is both electrically isolated (slideable bar 16 releases limit switch 10) and
mechanically blocked (slideable bar 16 engages blocking arm 12) from operating
the switchgear, thereby protecting an operator performing maintenance and/or
repair. Id.; see id. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims, and is reproduced below.
1. A safety lockout device for switchgear comprising:
an electrical motor for operating the switchgear, the motor
including a motor shaft having a portion extending outside a motor
housing;
a movable member movably mounted on an exterior of the
motor housing and adapted to be moved from a first position to a
second position;
a switch mounted on the exterior of the motor housing, the
switch being adapted to electrically isolate the motor in the
switchgear; and
3
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
a blocking arm coupled to the shaft of the motor, wherein in the
first position, the movable member engages the switch to close the
electrical motor circuit and the blocking arm is free to rotate with the
motor shaft and wherein in the second position, the movable member
moves away from the switch so that the switch is in an open circuit
state disconnecting power to the motor and a portion of the movable
member is moved to a position extending beyond the motor housing
whereby the blocking arm engages the portion of the movable
member which extends beyond the motor housing to prevent rotation
of the motor shaft and a change of state of the switchgear, and
wherein the position of the movable member relative to the switch
provides a visual indication of the operating state of the switchgear.
Appeal Br. 26, Claims Appendix ( emphasis added).
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows (Final 2-
15):
1. claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 over Baldewein (DE 4137779 (as translated) 3)
in view of Harr (US 5,254,814, issued Oct. 19, 1993) and Takano (US
2002/0170808 Al, published Nov. 21, 2002);
2. claims 3 and 14 over Baldewein, Harr, and Takano, further in view of
Andreyo (US 7,026,558 Bl, issued Apr. 11, 2006);
3. claims 4 and 15 over Baldewein, Harr, and Takano, further in view of
Laue et al. (US 5,190,150, issued Mar. 2, 1993);
4. claims 5 and 16 over Baldewein, Harr, and Takano, further in view of
Bogdon et al. (US 2006/0070861 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006);
5. claims 6 and 9-11 over Baldewein in view of Andreyo and Takano;
and
6. claims 7 and 8 over Baldewein, Andreyo, and Takano, further in view
of Laue.
3 All citations to Baldewein in this Decision are to the pages of the machine
translation.
4
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 6, and 12 are independent. See Appeal Br.
26-30, Claims Appendix. 4 Appellant's arguments in support ofpatentability as to
all appealed claims raise the following issue for our consideration: Has Appellant
shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding the claim language "a motor
shaft having a portion extending outside a motor housing" ( claims 1 and 6) and "a
shaft of the motor extending outside the motor box" (claim 12) reads on the shaft
attached to Baldewein's lever 4? See Appeal Br. 15, 17, 23; In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... "); Ex Parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) ("The panel then reviews the
obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon."). We answer this question
in the affirmative for the reasons discussed below.
The Examiner finds Baldewein discloses a safety lockout device for a
switchgear comprising electrical motor 8. Final 2-3. The Examiner finds motor 8
includes at least two motor shaft parts, identified as parts A and B in an annotated
version of Baldewein Figure 4 reproduced below from page 3 of the Answer.
4 Appellant identifies substantive differences between claims 1 and 12 and between
claims 1 and 6 on page 17 and pages 22-23, respectively, of the Appeal Brief.
5
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
-,
.. \ .:
'-::.:-.. ,:-.;;.:-.. ... -...;,; . ..,-.. -.;-_.,..;_...; ..... t
' -~
FlG.4
Annotated Figure 4 of Baldewein, above, is a schematic longitudinal section
through a motor drive. Baldewein 5. "The motor drive operates with a remote
controlled electric motor 8, the rotation of which is converted via intermediate
actuators in the pivoting movement of the rocker arm 9 of ... circuit breaker 7."
Id. at 7 (internal citation omitted). The Examiner finds shaft part A is the main
motor shaft, and includes a portion extending outside motor housing 1 as required
by claims 1, 6, and 12. Final 2-3, 9. The Examiner finds the claimed "b 1 ocking
arm" ( claims 1, 12) and "means for mechanically blocking the motor from
operating" ( claim 6) read on manual lever 4 (identified as "Lever" in annotated
Figure 4), which is connected to the portion of shaft part A extending outside
motor housing 1. Id. at 3, 9.
6
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
The Examiner finds shaft part B is connected to gear reducer 10. Ans. 2.
Baldewein discloses that gear reducer 10 connects electric motor 8 to crank 11.
Baldewein 7. When circuit breaker 7 is in the ON position, contact 39 and contact
40 (shown in Figure 10) connect to form a closed circuit, and crank 11 engages
slider 14 via crank pin 13. Id. Slider 14 engages a free end of rocker arm 9 of
circuit breaker 7. Id. Baldewein discloses that the circuit is opened by separation
tongue 38, which separates contact 39 from contact 40. Id. at 10; see id. at Fig. 10.
Separation tongue 3 8 moves together with locking slide 27 from an unlocked
position in which locking slide 27 is disengaged from manual lever 4 and contact
39 is connected to contact 40----circuit breaker 7 is in the ON position-to a locked
position in which locking slide 27 engages manual lever 4 and contact 39 is
separated from contact 40----circuit breaker 7 is in the OFF position. See id. at 10.
When circuit breaker 7 is in the OFF position, manual lever 4 engages slider 14 via
crank pin 25 and remote control of the motor drive is disabled by separation tongue
3 8 which separates contact 39 from contact 40 creating a break in the circuit to the
main power supply. Id. at 9--10.
The unlocked and locked positions of locking slide 27 are shown in
Baldewein Figures 8 and 9, respectively, reproduced below.
7
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
1
; F1Ge8
Figures 8 is a plan view showing manual lever 4 and locking slide 37 in the
unlocked position, corresponding to the ON position of circuit breaker 7.
Baldewein 6, 10.
Figure 9 is a plan view showing manual lever 4 and locking slide 3 7 in the locked
position, corresponding to the OFF position of circuit breaker 7. Id.
The Examiner finds the "movable member" ( claims 1, 6, and 12) reads on
locking slide 37 and movable tongue 38, which are movable between a first
position, illustrated in Baldewein Figure 8, and a second position, illustrated in
8
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
Baldewein Figure 9. Final 3, 6, 9. The Examiner finds the "switch" ( claims 1 and
12) and the "means for electrically disconnecting power to the motor" (claim 6)
read on contacts 39, 40. Id. The Examiner finds that in the first position of
locking slide 37 (the "movable member"), manual lever 4 (the "blocking arm") is
free to rotate with the motor shaft. Final 3 ("'The braking distance of the motor
through a gear associated crank pin (13) extends beyond the support curve of the
slide, so the slider (14) is then free to move with the rocker arm of the circuit
breaker (9) ', consequently the control lever ( 4 ), which is connected to the motor
shaft ... via [slider] (14) can rotate with the shaft .... ") (citing Baldewein 4)).
Appellant agrees that the shaft designated as part B in annotated Figure 4,
above, is a "motor shaft," as claimed (see Reply Br. 6), but contends the Examiner
erred in finding that the claimed "motor shaft" reads on the shaft designated as part
A in annotated Figure 4. Appellant argues that during operation of the switchgear
using electric motor 8, the motor shaft ( designated by the Examiner as "part B") is
connected to gear reducer 10, which is connected to crank 11. Appeal Br. 20;
Reply Br. 4. Crank 11 includes crank pin 13, which is connected to slide 14 that
operates rocker 9, rocker 9 being connected to the switchgear. Appeal Br. 20;
Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that during manual operation of the switchgear
using manual lever 4, the shaft designated by the Examiner as "part A" connects
manual lever 4 to slide 14 via engagement of slide 14 with crank pin 25. Appeal
Br. 20; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues slide 14 is part of a linkage that allows the
switchgear to be operated by motor 8 or by manual lever 4. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues, however, that slide 14 does not connect manual lever 4 to the
motor and, therefore, it was unreasonable for the Examiner to find that the claimed
"motor shaft" reads on shaft part A. See, e.g., Reply Br. 5.
9
Appeal2017-010721
Application 14/297, 721
Appellant has argued persuasively that the Examiner has not identified
sufficient evidence to support a finding that Baldewein' s manual lever 4 is
"coupled to" ( claims 1, 12)/"mounted on" ( claim 6) a shaft that reasonably could
be considered a "motor shaft" as recited in claims 1, 6, and 12. As discussed in the
Specification, the inventive safety lockout device includes both a means for
electrically disconnecting the power to the motor and a means for mechanically
blocking operation of the motor, e.g., by preventing rotation of the motor shaft.
Spec. ,r,r 12, 13. The Examiner has not explained with sufficient clarity how
manual lever 4 mechanically blocks operation of the motor. For example, the
Examiner has not explained how manual lever 4 and shaft part A are coupled to the
motor in a manner that would prevent operation of the motor.
In sum, Appellant has argued persuasively that the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness as to independent claims 1, 6, and 12 is based on an unsupported
finding of fact. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-16.
REVERSED
10