Ex Parte Buchenau et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

11639605 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
11/639,605 12/15/2006 Alexander Buchenau 207,923 7137
38137 7590 07/31/2012
ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB
666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
EXAMINER
CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER BUCHENAU, UTO PLANK, and
STEFAN HAMMERSTINGL
____________________

Appeal 2010-004311
Application 11/639,605
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004311
Application 11/639,605
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Henriksson (US 5,921,327, iss. Jul. 13, 1999) and Emonet
(US 4,576,241, iss. Mar. 18, 1986). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is the sole
independent claim.
1. A portable hand-held power tool (2), comprising:
a housing (10);
a drive assembly (8) located in housing (10) for driving a
tool spindle (4) extending along an operational axis (A), a first
handle (16) rotatable around a first pivot axis (S1) and a second
handle (20) rotatable around a second pivot axis (S2), the first
and second handles (16, 20) being arranged on the opposite
sides (14.1, 14.2) of the housing (10);
first (22) and second (24) handle suspensions for rotating,
respectively, the first (16) and second (20) handles about the
first (S1) and second (S2) pivot axes, respectively, the first
handle suspension (22) and the second handle suspension (24)
partially extending circumferentially around the drive assembly
(8); and
spring means (46) for biasing the first and second handles
(16, 20) to an initial position thereof,
wherein between the first handle suspension (22) and
the second handle suspension (24), a first damping body
(32.1; 32.2) is provided which forms a first end stop (30.1;
30.2) and a second end stop (38.1; 38.2), against which the first
(22) and the second (24) handle suspensions are put up, and
wherein the first damping body (32.1, 32.2) limits a pivot
motion of the first handle suspension (22) and a pivot motion
of the second handle suspension (24) in both pivot directions.

We REVERSE.

App
App
(1) lo
moti
betw
susp
teach
one f
Henr
direc
wou
argu
Repl
below
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Sole ind
cated betw
on of the h
The Exa
een the ha
ensions an
ings of H
or each ha
Appellan
iksson do
tions. Rep
ld only lim
e that end
y Br. 4. B
An anno
:
04311
/639,605
ependent c
een two h
andle susp
miner foun
ndle suspe
d handles.
enriksson
ndle susp
ts argue th
es not limi
ly Br. 3.
it pivoting
closure 50
oth of App
tated repro
O
laim 1 req
andle sus
ensions in
d that He
nsions tha
” Ans. 3.
with those
ension). S
at the “da
t the pivot
Appellant
in one dir
of Henrik
ellants’ a
duction o
3
PINION
uires, in re
pensions a
both pivo
nriksson d
t “limit[s]
The Exam
of Emone
ee Ans. 3-
mping bod
motion of
s note that
ection (do
sson is bel
rguments a
f figure 1 o
levant par
nd (2) lim
t direction
escribes a
pivot mov
iner propo
t (first and
4; see also
y” (end c
both hand
, if anythin
wn). Id.
ow, not be
re persuas
n Henriks
t, a dampi
iting the p
s.
damping b
ement of
ses to mo
second pi
Emonet,
losure 50)
les in both
g, the end
Appellant
tween, th
ive.
son is pro
ng body
ivot
ody (50)
the
dify the
vot axis,
fig. 3.
of
pivot
closure 5
s also
e handles.
vided

0

Appeal 2010-004311
Application 11/639,605
4
After the Examiner’s proposed modification, there would be two
separate pivot axes, one for each of the two handles (29, 30). Nevertheless,
no matter how far apart the pivot axes are arranged, the end closure 50 will
be below the pivot axes because the end closure 50 is at or below the various
portions of the housing (indicated by dotted line in annotated figure 1). As
such, the Examiner’s proposed combination does not satisfy the “between”
limitation of claim 1.
Further, for a given handle, the end closure 50 would only limit
pivoting in one direction, down (assuming the handle was not already
limited by another portion of the housing). The pivoting motion of a given
handle appears to be limited in the other direction by top end cover 60.
Even if top end cover 60 was removed, the handle would strike some portion
of the housing on the other side of the tool, not end closure 50. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s proposed combination does not satisfy the “limits a pivot
motion of the first handle [and second handle] … in both pivot directions”
limitation.
The errors in the Examiner’s rejection of the sole independent claim
are not cured in the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1 and 4-10.

REVERSED

hh