Ex Parte Rubens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

13431312 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 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.
13/431,312 03/27/2012 Jeremy Rubens 1576-0887
(R342020PT-RT)
6601
10800 7590 08/07/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2017 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 JEREMY RUBENS, JAIME MORENO,
and CHASTITY MARTINEZ
Appeal 2016-003319
Application 13/431,312
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeremy Rubens et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-003319
Application 13/431,312
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A dust extraction system for a power tool having a
output shaft, a collet configured for engaging a tool bit and a
collet nut engageable to the output shaft to fasten the collet to the
output shaft, said system comprising:
a base configured for mounting on the power tool, said
base defining a cavity having an opening for passage of the
output shaft therethrough when said base is mounted on the
power tool, said base further including a discharge chute in
communication with said cavity, said chute having an inlet
intersecting said cavity, an outlet outside said base and a
discharge passageway between said inlet and said outlet sized for
passage of dust produced by operation of the tool bit on a
workpiece; and
an impeller sized and configured to be rotatably received
within said cavity, said impeller including a hub and a plurality
of vanes emanating from said hub, said vanes configured to draw
dust from the workpiece into said cavity and to direct dust from
said cavity into said discharge chute, said hub defining a bore
therethrough sized and configured to removably engage the
collet nut so that said impeller rotates with the collet nut and
output shaft of the tool.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Tiede
Reich
Baker
US 6,159,084 Dec. 12,2000
US 2006/0276116 A1 Dec. 7, 2006
US 2010/0170538 A1 July 8, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-003319
Application 13/431,312
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baker.
II. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baker and Reich.
III. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baker and Tiede.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1—12 and 14
The Examiner finds that Baker discloses each and every limitation of
claim 1. See Final Act. 2-4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Baker
discloses an impeller 204 including a hub 206, wherein hub 206 defines a
bore 214 therethrough. See id. at 3. The Examiner further finds that bore
214 is sized and configured to removably engage the collet nut and that
impeller 204 rotates with the collet nut. See id.
Appellants contend that Baker does not disclose a hub “defining a
bore therethrough sized and configured to removably engage the collet nut
so that said impeller rotates with the collet nut and output shaft of the tool.”
Appeal Br. 6—7. Noting that Baker discloses a power tool having a collet nut
232, Appellants explain that “it is apparent that the collet nut (232) is
physically separated from the opening (214) in the hub (206) of the impeller
(202) since the collet nut (232) is mounted to the free end of the shaft
extension (220).” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Baker Figs. 4—6). Based on this
3
Appeal 2016-003319
Application 13/431,312
explanation, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding is in error. See id.
at 6—8.
As shown in Figures 5 and 6, Baker’s hub 206 is part of a fan
assembly 202. Baker 144. Hub 206 has a bore 214 sized and configured to
engage output shaft extension 220. See id. at 146. The rejection identifies
two different collet nuts (152 and 232) in Baker. See Final Act. 3. Baker’s
hub is not sized and configured to engage either of these collet nuts. Baker’s
collet nut 152 is “for securing a tool bit 154 to the motor shaft of the rotary
cutting tool 100.” Baker 134. As shown in Baker’s Figures 5 and 6, collet
nut 152 is physically separated from bore 214, such that bore 214 cannot
engage this collet nut. Furthermore, collet nut 152 has a larger outside
diameter than the diameter of bore 214. Thus, bore 214 is not sized and
configured for engagement with collet nut 152 as required by claim 1.
Collet nut 232 is part of Baker’s cutting accessory device or mechanism 228.
Id. at | 50. As shown in Baker’s Figure 4, collet nut 232 also has a larger
outside diameter than the diameter of bore 214 and is physically separated
from bore 214. Thus, bore 214 is not sized and configured for engagement
with collet nut 232 either. Accordingly, Appellants are correct and the
finding is in error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2—12 and 14 which depend therefrom, as anticipated by
Baker.
Claims 15, 16, and 18—20
Similarly to claim 1, claim 15 similarly recites “a collet nut integrated
into said hub of said impeller and configured to removably engage the
threaded portion of the output shaft of the tool so that said impeller rotates
4
Appeal 2016-003319
Application 13/431,312
with the collet nut and output shaft of the tool.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis
added). As collet nut 232 of Baker (identified by the Examiner as
corresponding to the claimed collet nut) does not physically contact the hub,
it cannot be integrated into the hub as required by claim 15. Thus, the
Examiner’s finding that Baker discloses “a collet nut (232) integrated into
said hub 206” is in error. Final Act. 8 (emphases omitted).
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 15, and claims 16 and 18—20 which depend therefrom, as anticipated
by Baker.
Rejections II and III
Rejections II and III rely on the same erroneous findings as Rejection
I. Neither Reich nor Tiede is relied on to cure the deficiencies of these
findings. Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejections II and III for the
reasons discussed supra.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5