Ex Parte Jung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201512838573 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2015) 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. 12/838,573 07/19/2010 Achim Jung PR1129A1 6595 28268 7590 04/30/2015 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION 701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199 TOWSON, MD 21286 EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ACHIM JUNG, RENE JAGER, and IAN S. BELL ____________________ Appeal 2013-000225 Application 12/838,573 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–9, which are all of the pending claims.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Black & Decker, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2013-000225 Application 12/838,573 Claimed Subject Matter The claims are directed to an actuation apparatus for a power tool. Spec. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal, and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An actuation apparatus for a multi-mode power tool having a housing, a motor with a rotary output shaft disposed in the housing, drive means for driving a working member of the tool in response to rotation of said rotary output shaft, and a trigger disposed on the housing to enable activation of said motor, the actuation apparatus comprising: a mode control switch adapted for enabling a user to select between a first mode of operation and a second mode of operation; a mode selection sensor for providing a signal indicating which mode of operation of the tool has been selected; and a control circuit for controlling operation of the motor in response to the signal, such that when in the first mode of operation the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression and release of the trigger, and in the second mode of operation, the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed; and an on/off switch for actuating the motor, the on/off switch mechanically actuated by the trigger; and a lock-on switch; and wherein the lock-on switch is actuated by the control circuit, with the result that when the first mode is selected, and in response to a first depression of the trigger the motor is energized and when the trigger is released the motor remains energized. 2 Appeal 2013-000225 Application 12/838,573 Rejection Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frauhammer (UK Patent App. GB 2 314 288 A, pub. Dec. 24, 1997) and Fisher (U.S. Patent No. 6,150,632, iss. Nov. 21, 2000). ANALYSIS Claim 1 is directed to a multi-mode power tool having a first mode of operation and a second mode of operation. Appeal Br., Claims App. 10. Appellants’ Specification makes clear that the claim term “mode of operation” refers to the manner in which the working member of the tool operates. For example, the Specification indicates that hammer drills “generally have three modes of operation, i.e.[,] a hammer only mode, a drill only mode[,] and a combined hammer and drilling mode.” Spec. ¶ 3. Appellants’ Specification further indicates that an electric combination hammer of the Frauhammer reference (the primary reference relied on by the Examiner) has two operating modes: a drilling mode and a chiseling mode. Id. ¶ 4. The Examiner’s Rejection relies on Frauhammer to supply the multi- mode power tool of claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner then finds that Fisher discloses a control circuit of the type required by claim 1. Id. 4–5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Fisher: teaches a controller (32) including a lock-on switch (10) . . . for controlling the operation of the feed motor in response to a signal of a selected mode wherein the trigger when depressed for a predetermine[d] time period locks-on and remains activated to feed the wire continually until deactivated by a second depression (see col. 3, lines 9-28) . . . wherein the lock- on switch is actuated by the control circuit (20 Fig.2), with the result that when the first mode is selected, and in response to a 3 Appeal 2013-000225 Application 12/838,573 first depression of the trigger the motor is energized . . . when the trigger is released the motor remains energized. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the multi-mode power tool of Frauhammer to include the controller of Fisher. Id. at 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because Frauhammer and Fisher do not individually or collectively teach or suggest “a control circuit for controlling operation of the motor in response to the signal [wherein] the signal sensed is the operational mode of the tool.” Appeal Br. 5–6. In response, the Examiner clarifies that the multi-mode power tool of Frauhammer includes a manual lock-on switch, and indicates that the Fisher reference “was chosen to show that [it is] obvious to provide the lock-on switch actuated by the control circuit.” Ans. 6. The Examiner’s response, however, does not directly address Appellants’ argument that the prior art does not disclose a power tool having multiple modes of operation, and a control circuit that places the trigger in lock-on mode (i.e., a mode where “the motor is operated by a first depression of the trigger and remains activated until deactivated by a second depression and release of the trigger”) or non-lock-on mode (i.e., a mode where “the motor is only activated while the trigger is depressed”) in response to a signal indicating which mode of operation of the tool has been selected. Lock-on mode switch 22 of Fisher is a manual switch. Although the Examiner has provided a rationale for incorporating the manual lock-on mode switch of Fisher into the multi-mode power tool of Frauhammer, the Examiner has not shown that it would have been obvious to also include a control circuit that places the trigger in lock-on mode or non-lock-on mode 4 Appeal 2013-000225 Application 12/838,573 in response to a signal indicating which mode of operation of the tool (e.g., drilling mode or chiseling mode) has been selected. In other words, claim 1 requires that one trigger lock mode correspond to one tool operation mode and that the other trigger lock mode correspond to a second tool operation mode, but the Examiner’s articulated rationale does not address the trigger lock mode to tool operation mode correlation required by independent claim 1. We, therefore, find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive, and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 and 5–9 all depend from, and thus incorporate the limitations of, independent claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 5–9. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5–9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103(a). REVERSED hh 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation