Ex Parte Nakashima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

11478656 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEIJI NAKASHIMA, TAKAYUKI TAHARA,
HAJIME TAKEUCHI, and RYO SUNAZUKA
____________

Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, BRETT C. MARTIN,
and BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Keiji Nakashima et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-12. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to vibration damping support
structure for a power tool.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A power tool comprising:
a tool body,
a tool bit disposed in a tip end region of the tool
body to perform a predetermined operation on a workpiece,
a grip mounted on the tool body on the side
opposite to the tool bit,
a motor housed within the tool body to drive the
tool bit,
a tool bit side bearing and a grip side bearing that
rotatably support a rotating shaft of the motor,
a tool bit side bearing housing that is separate from
the grip and houses the tool bit side bearing,
a grip side bearing housing that houses the grip
side bearing, the grip side bearing housing including an
extending end portion that extends (1) from a grip side of the
grip side bearing housing and (2) coaxially with a longitudinal
axis of the shaft of the motor, and
an elastic element that forms a continuous
structure with the grip and is disposed between the grip side
bearing housing and the grip,
wherein the grip includes a covering portion that
extends toward the grip side bearing housing coaxially with the
longitudinal axis of the shaft of the motor, and
the grip side bearing housing is elastically
supported by the grip via the elastic element,
the elastic element being disposed within the
covering portion of the grip to receive the extending end
portion of the grip side bearing housing, such that the grip side
bearing housing is fully elastically supported by the extending
portion of the grip side bearing housing engaging the covering
portion of the grip via the elastic element at least in a direction
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

3
crossing the longitudinal direction of the shaft of the motor.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Happe
Walker
Simm
US 2,711,461
US 2004/0098836 A1
US 6,858,286 B1
Jun. 21, 1955
May 27, 2004
Feb. 22, 2005
Geis1

DE 40 00 861 A1 Jul. 18, 1991

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-11stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Happe in view of Walker, and further in view of Geis.
Claim 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Happe in view of Walker, and further in view of Simm.
OPINION
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 – Obviousness
Happe In View Of Walker And Geis
The Examiner has found all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 to
be disclosed by Happe, except for the elastic element that forms a
continuous structure with the grip and is disposed within the covering
portion of the grip such that the grip side bearing housing is fully elastically
supported thereby. The Examiner further has found that Walker teaches a
handle assembly including an elastic element and a covering portion, with
the elastic element forming a continuous structure with the grip and “would
be disposed between the grip side and the motor bearing side,” and Geis

1 All citations to Geis are to the English Translation dated April 15, 2010.
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

4
teaches that it is well known to provide an elastically supported bearing
housing. Ans. 4. On the basis of these findings, the Examiner has
concluded it would have been obvious in view of Walker to modify Happe
so as to provide an elastic element and covering “for the purpose of
supporting the grip bearing side,” and in view of Geis to further modify
Happe by incorporating “an elastic bearing housing for the purpose of
providing damping effect to the handle of the tool.” Ans. 4.
In pages 8 through 12 of the Brief Appellants explain in great detail
the shortcomings they find in each of the three references, and why the
combination of the teachings of these references would not have rendered
obvious the limitations in claim 1, in particular, “the elastic element being
disposed within the covering portion of the grip to receive the extending end
portion of the grip side bearing housing,” and “the grip side bearing housing
is elastically supported by the grip via the elastic element.” See Ans. 8.
Happe discloses a power tool comprising a motor housing 12 formed
with a bearing bracket 13 that provides a spherical seat 14 to receive a grip
side bushing 15 for supporting the grip side end of the motor shaft. Col. 2,
ll. 1-3; Fig. 1. There is no teaching in Happe of utilizing elastic components
in the mounting of the grip side bearing housing.
Walker is directed to a power tool handle “having combined friction
and vibration damping properties.” Para. [0001]. As shown in Figure 2, the
handle comprises a smooth upper surface 4 having a recessed portion 5
provided with an opening 6 for the actuating switch. Installed in recessed
portion 5 is a flexible sheet 8 of elastomeric material having a series of
flexible protrusions 10, each of which defines an air-filled chamber. A
securing plate 11 having openings 14 is seated atop flexible sheet 8 in such a
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

5
manner as to allow protrusions 10 to extend therethrough. Paras. [0030] and
[0031]. When a user’s hand grips the tool, the air chambers defined by
protrusions 10 damp the vibrations generated by the tool. Para. [0037].
Combining the teachings of Happe and Walker would, at best, result in
modifying the Happe grip by providing it with an elastomeric material
having vibration-absorbing air chambers, but would not provide suggestion
to modify the manner in which the Happe grip side bearing housing is
supported.
Geis discloses a hand-held percussion drill that has means for
“decoupling” the handgrip from the motor by using rubber motor mounts
between the inner motor casing and the outer tool casing by means of
rubber-like components 14. The handgrip 12 is on the outer casing of the
tool and not on the motor casing. See Fig. 1, Abstract. The Examiner has
taken the position that Geis discloses “vibration damping bearing material
(23) to support the motor in the housing.” Ans. 9.
Claim 1 requires “an elastic element that forms a continuous structure
with the grip and is disposed between the grip side bearing housing and the
grip . . . such that the grip side bearing housing is fully elastically supported
by the extending portion of the grip side bearing housing engaging the grip
via the elastic element.” Not apparent in any of the applied references is a
disclosure or teaching of supporting the grip side bearing housing by an
elastic element having the claimed characteristics, and the Examiner has
failed to explain how the teachings of Walker and Geis would have
suggested that the Happe tool be modified in such a manner. With regard to
Geis, even if the Examiner’s presumption that element 23 is elastic and
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

6
supports the motor, no evidence has been presented that it does so by
supporting the grip side bearing support.
The rejection of claim 1 is not sustained, nor is the like rejection of
claims 2, 3 and 5-11, which depend from claim 1.

Claim 12 – Obviousness
Happe In View Of Walker And Simm
Claim 12 recites an elastic element that forms a continuous structure
with the grip, is disposed between the grip side bearing housing and the grip,
and supports the grip side bearing housing. It also recites “a rubber cover
disposed on an outer periphery of the grip to contact with the palm and
fingers of the user . . . the elastic element and the rubber cover comprising a
single monolithically-formed unit.”
In this rejection the Examiner has utilized Happe and Walker in the
same manner as in the rejection of claim 1. Ans. 7. Simm has been added
for teaching “a tool handle including a rubber (19 soft elastic) for the
purpose of cushioning the handle surface during operation,” the Examiner
concluding that it would have been obvious in view of Simm to provide the
Happe tool grip with a rubber cover. Ans. 7. Appellants’ arguments are the
same as were advanced with regard to the rejection of claim 1. See Br. 8.
On the basis of the same reasoning expressed in the rejection of claim
1, it is our view that the combined teachings of Happe and Walker fall short
of rendering obvious the elastic element recited in claim 12. Simm
discloses a coating of soft elastic material covering the handle body to form
an air reservoir under the user’s hand (Abstract), “which largely reduces the
moistening of the hand when working with hand-operated electric machine
tools” (Col. 1, ll. 29-31). It is not apparent from the Examiner’s explanation
Appeal 2011-005863
Application 11/478,656

7
of the rejection how further modifying the Happe tool in view of the
teachings of Simm would overcome the shortcomings in the combination of
Happe and Walker.
The rejection of claim 12 is not sustained.
DECISION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

mls