Ex Parte Faatz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11958064 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

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.
11/958,064 12/17/2007 INV001Heinz-Werner Faatz P-US-PR-1067A 1450
28268 7590 03/20/2013
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
EXAMINER
TRINH, MINH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 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 HEINZ-WERNER FAATZ, ERNST STAAS,
THOMAS STANKE, ROBERT WACHE (DECEASED) and
ROSI WACHE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)
____________

Appeal 2011-001517
Application 11/958,064
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001517
Application 11/958,064
- 2 -

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 7-12 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Steffen (US 6,123,158 iss. Sep. 26, 2000) and Riedl (US 6,543,549 B1 iss.
Apr. 8, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of assembling a hand held,
air-cooled, electrical power tool. Spec. 1, para. [0001], [0002]. Claim 7,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
7. A method of assembling a hand held electrically
powered drilling and/or hammering tool having a tool housing
and a spindle mounted within the housing; comprising the steps
of:
making a motor sub-assembly including a motor, an
armature shaft and a radial fan, the fan having a plurality of
blades, and mounting the fan on an end of the armature shaft at
a first end of the motor with the blades facing away from the
motor; balancing the motor sub-assembly;
mounting the sub-assembly within the housing, with the
longitudinal axis of the armature shaft at an angle to the
longitudinal axis of the spindle and with the first end of the
motor closest to the spindle axis, so that in use of the tool the
fan rotates at the first end of the motor to draw air into the
housing, push air through the motor and out of the housing
proximate to a second end of the motor, which second end of
the motor is remote from the spindle axis and proximate to a
commutator.

Appeal 2011-001517
Application 11/958,064

- 3 -
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Steffen discloses all the limitations of claim 7
except that it fails to expressly disclose balancing the motor sub-assembly.
Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies on Riedl as disclosing the balancing of a
motor sub-assembly. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Riedl teaches
a fan that rotates at the first end of the motor to draw air into the housing,
push air through the motor and out of the housing proximate to a second end
of the motor. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize
Riedl’s teaching to modify Steffen. Id. According to the Examiner, the
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the
combination in order to facilitate the operating of the tool such as for cooling
the motor assembly as well as expelling warm air generated by the motor
during operation. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that neither
Steffen nor Riedl discloses a radial fan situated at a first end of the motor
and configured to push (not pull) air over the motor and out of the housing
as claimed. App. Br. 4-7. Appellants argue that both Steffen and Riedl pull
(not push) air over the motor and that Steffen and Riedl’s fans are situated
on the opposite end of the motor from the claimed invention. App. Br. 6.
Appellants’ contend, in essence, that their design that pushes instead of pulls
cooling air over the motor constitutes a patentable, non-obvious distinction
over the prior art.
Although Steffen discloses a radial fan, the fan is oriented with the
blades facing toward the motor. See Figure. Steffen’s sole figure indicates
the direction of air flow with an arrow 7. Id. Steffen’s fan is configured to
Appeal 2011-001517
Application 11/958,064

- 4 -
pull air across the motor in the direction of the arrow. Id. Riedl, like
Steffen, discloses a radial fan configured to pull air across the motor. See
Figures 2-4, directional airflow arrows P.
The Examiner’s findings that Steffen and Riedl disclose fans that push
air across the motor are not supported by a preponderance of evidence. We
agree with Appellants that Steffen and Riedl, contrary to the Examiner’s
findings, each fail to disclose a radial fan situated at the first end of the
motor that pushes air over the motor. Ans. 6-7. In the absence of explicit,
rationally supported technical reasoning demonstrating that use of a radial
fan to push rather than pull cooling air across a motor would have been an
obvious modification of Steffen and Riedl, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 7. Neither do we sustain the rejection of
claims 8-12, all of which depend directly or indirectly from claim 7.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7-12 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh