Black & Decker Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2021000722 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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.
15/964,916 04/27/2018 John C. Vanko P-US-TN-15123-C 7195
28268 7590 09/29/2021
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
701 East Joppa Road, MR045
Towson, MD 21286
EXAMINER
BOUZIANE, SAID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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 JOHN C. VANKO, MICHAEL K. FORSTER,
TAL GOTTESMAN, and JOHN D. COX

Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 and 21.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Black &
Decker Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
2 On page 3 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant states that claim 20 is not
appealed.
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:

1. A power tool, comprising:
a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor having a stator
defining a plurality of phases;
a switching arrangement having a plurality of motor
switches connected electrically between a power source and the
BLDC motor and operates to deliver power to the BLDC motor;
and
a controller interfaced with the plurality of motor switches
and, for each phase, operates to output a pulse-width modulated
(PWM) signal to one or more of the plurality of motor switches
to control power supplied to the BLDC motor, wherein the
controller is configured to:
set an advance angle corresponding to an angle by which
commutation of the plurality of phases is advanced to a baseline
value,
monitor a parameter associated with load on the BLDC
motor, in a low-load condition where the load is below a load
threshold, maintain the advance angle at a value that is
approximately 30 degrees smaller than the baseline value to
reduce noise, and
upon detection of the load being greater than or equal to
the load threshold indicative of a loaded condition, begin to
gradually increase the advance angle from the baseline value to
an upper threshold value to maintain speed of the BLDC motor
at a target speed with increased load.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Eskritt US 2005/0225275 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Kawano US 2011/0148332 A1 June 23, 2011
Dorner US 2013/0063060 A1 Mar. 14, 2013
Yanagihara US 2013/0314007 A1 Nov. 28, 2013

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–6 and 8–11 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) over
Eskritt in view of Yanagihara.
2. Claim 7, 12–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) over
Eskritt in view of Yanagihara and Dorner.
3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Eskritt in view of Kawano.3
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),

3 As mentioned in footnote 2, Appellant does not appeal claim 20.
Therefore, this rejection is summarily affirmed. See MPEP § 1205.02 (2017)
(“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it.”); see also Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue—or more broadly, on a particular
rejection—the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.”).
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

4
cited with approval in 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.”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the
record. Accordingly, we reverse Rejections 1 and 2, essentially for the
reasons set forth by Appellant, and add the following for emphasis.
Rejection 3 is summarily affirmed (see footnotes 2 and 3, supra).

Rejections 1 and 2
We refer to Appellant’s argument set forth on pages 10–19 of the
Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellant explains how Eskritt does not teach
certain claim limitations and that Yanagihara fails to overcome the
deficiencies of Eskritt.
With regard to claim 1, Appellant states that Yanagihara fails to teach
the transition from approximately 30° below baseline value to baseline value
upon detection of the load being greater than the load threshold. Appeal Br.
12. Appellant argues that the Examiner relies upon Figure 8 of Yanagihara
for disclosing maintaining the advance angle at a value if the load is below a
load threshold, and gradually increasing the advance angle if the load is
greater than or equal to the load threshold (Final Act. 3). Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant also states that the Examiner refers to Yanagihara’s Figure 6 for
showing a conduction angle gradually changing from 120 degrees to 150
degrees (Final Act. 4). Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

5
Appellant states that as shown in Figure 6, Yanagihara discloses
increasing the advance angle in steps (a)–(c) from 0 to 15 degrees while
maintaining the conduction angle at 120 degrees, before expanding the
trailing edge of the conduction angle in steps (d)–(f), to achieve a conduction
angle of 150 degrees. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant submits that thus, at most, Yanagihara discloses increasing
the advance angle from 0 to 15 degrees. Appellant therefore submits that
there is no suggestion in Yanagihara of maintaining the advance angle at 0
degrees, transitioning the advance angle from 0 to 30 degrees upon detection
of loaded condition, and gradually increasing the advance angle from 30
degrees thereafter, contrary to the Examiner’s understanding of Yanagihara.
Appeal Br. 12.
We are persuaded by the aforementioned line of argument. In
response to the aforementioned line of argument, the Examiner takes the
position that it would have been obvious to set 30 degrees as the advance
angle since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result
effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Ans. 5–6. We agree
with Appellant that this proposed modification is not suggested by the
applied art. Appeal Br. 13–15. We add that a particular parameter must first
be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the
optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as
routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). On the
record before us, the Examiner does not establish that the advance angle is
recognized in the art as a result-effective variable.
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

6
With regard to claim 12, we also agree with Appellant that
Yanaghihara and Dorner do not overcome the deficiencies of Eskritt for the
reasons presented by Appellant on pages 17–19 of the Appeal Brief.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejections 1 and 2.

Rejection 3
We summarily affirm Rejection 3 because Appellant does not appeal
claim 20.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision with respect to Rejections 1 and
2. Rejection 3 is summarily affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–11 103 Eskritt, Yanagihara 1–6, 8–11
7, 12–19, 21 103 Eskritt, Dorner,
Yanagihara
7, 12–19, 21
20 103 Eskritt, Kawano 20
Overall
Outcome
20 1–19, 21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-000722
Application 15/964,916

7
AFFIRMED IN PART