Ex Parte Gallagher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

12070514 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/070,514 02/19/2008 William F. Gallagher P-US-TN-09300-B 1059
28268 7590 03/26/2013
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199
TOWSON, MD 21286
EXAMINER
CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2013 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 WILLIAM F. GALLAGHER, MICHAEL C. DOYLE, ERIC E.
HATFIELD, DAVID C. TOMAYKO, DANIEL L. KROUT,
and TANIKA MALLOY
_____________

Appeal 2010-010254
Application 12/070,514
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR
M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010254
Application 12/070,514

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-8 which represent all the pending claims. App. Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to improvements to angle grinders. See Spec.
¶ [0003].
Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A trigger assembly for a power tool having a motor disposed within
a housing, the trigger assembly comprising:
a switch disposed within the housing for activating the motor;
a trigger extending from the housing and engageable by a user, the
trigger having a head portion and at least one link member and the trigger
slideably moveable between a first position and a second position,
wherein the link member actuates the switch to activate the motor and
the head portion is pivotably engageable with the housing when the trigger is
in the second position and wherein the link member does not actuate the
switch and the head portion is not pivotably engageable with the housing
when the trigger is in the first position.

REFERENCE
Gallagher US 2003/0190877 A1 Oct. 9, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gallagher. Ans. 3-5.
Appeal 2010-010254
Application 12/070,514

3
Claims 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gallagher. Ans. 5-6.
ISSUE
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Gallagher discloses a “trigger
slideably moveable between a first position and a second position,”
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue “the motion of trigger 40 is most reasonably
described as rotational or pivotal motion.” Br. 6. We are not persuaded by
this argument.
“Examiner interprets the word ‘slide’ using Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (defined as ‘to move or pass
smoothly or easily’).” Ans. 6. Appellants argue that “[w]ith terms such as
rotate and pivot available, one of ordinary skill would never describe
Gallagher’s trigger as slideably moveable between a first position and a
second position as required by claim 1.” Br. 6-7. We agree with Examiner’s
construction and adopt it as our own.
Appellants point to element 80 in the Specification to provide support
for limiting movement of the trigger to sliding in a plane rather than pivoting
or rotating. Br. 4. However, the Specification only states that “Posts 90
preferably extend from the under side of the slider button 82 through an
aperture 94 of an engagement member 92 of the field case 16 for sliding
movement of the slider button trigger 80.” Spec. ¶ [0057]. Figures 12 and 13
show a trigger that slides along a plane. We find that the definition of
“slideably” is not limited to the embodiments shown in the Specification.
Appeal 2010-010254
Application 12/070,514

4
In Trans Texas Holdings, the Federal Circuit provided a clear
description of how to construe claims, noting:
In Phillips, we held that while “the specification [should be
used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” courts must not
“import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id.
at 1323. We specifically noted that it is improper to “confin[e]
the claims to th[e] embodiments” found in the specification, as
Trans Texas asks us to do. Id.
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Federal Circuit noted that “[u]nder Phillips, dictionary definitions
are also pertinent. See id. at 1318 (‘[T]he court has observed that dictionaries
… can be useful in claim construction.’).” Id. at 1299. The Federal Circuit
expressly commented that there were multiple dictionary definitions for the
term “directly” but chose the “broadest” definition. See Trans Texas
Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1299. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board
decision in which the Board selected a dictionary definition that was broader
than the examples disclosed in the Specification and was the broader
dictionary definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1298-1299.
Appellants do not identify any description in the original disclosure
that precludes the Examiner’s reading of slideably to mean to move or pass
smoothly or easily. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented,
Appellants have not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s construction of
“slideably” is unreasonable in view of Appellants’ Specification.
Gallagher discloses a trigger 40 that rotates about pivot 44 but also
slides along surface 88. Gallagher, Fig. 2, ¶ [0081]; see also, Ans. 6. Thus,
we find ample support for the Examiner’s finding that Gallagher discloses a
Appeal 2010-010254
Application 12/070,514

5
“trigger slideably moveable between a first position and a second position,”
as recited in claim 1.
Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of claims 2-8.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-8.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk