Ex Parte Klee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13642177 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
2178-0564 1497
EXAMINER
PALMER, LUCAS E A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/642,177 03/04/2013
10800 7590 09/27/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Christoph Klee
09/27/2017 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 CHRISTOPH KLEE and HANS-JOERG FAISST
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christoph Klee and Hans-Joerg Faisst (Appellants)1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An angle grinder, comprising:
a drive unit configured to drive an insertion tool;
an angle grinder housing in which the drive unit is
arranged;
a sensor device arranged in the angle grinder housing and
including a yaw rate sensor configured to detect a yaw rate of the
angle grinder housing and provide a rotation parameter as a
function of the detected yaw rate; and
a control and/or regulating unit configured to evaluate the
rotation parameter and to detect a jammed state of the insertion
tool based on the rotation parameter.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Hettich
(US 5,401,124, issued Mar. 28, 1995).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hettich.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1—8
Anticipation
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hettich discloses, inter alia, a
sensor device 14, 20 including a yaw rate sensor configured to detect a yaw
rate of an angle grinder housing, and to provide a rotation parameter as a
2
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
function of the detected yaw rate. Final Act. 4 (citing Hettich, Abstract, col.
2,1. 40-col. 3,1. 18). The Examiner determines that because Hettich
discloses a gyroscope, the gyroscope detects the change in angular
momentum as a result of the change in angular velocity of the housing
(cqg,5), and “a change in angular velocity is a yaw rate.” Id. at 3 (citing
Hettich, col. 2,11. 46-47, 49—52). In support, the Examiner cites to an article
in Wikipedia2 pertaining to yaw-rate sensors, which states:
A yaw-rate sensor is a gyroscopic device that measures a
vehicle’s angular velocity around its vertical axis. The angle
between the vehicle’s heading and vehicle actual movement
direction is called slip angle, which is related to the yaw rate.
Id. (italics omitted).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has mischaracterized Hettich.
Appeal Br. 4. Particularly, Appellants contend that Hettich does not disclose
a yaw rate sensor or a sensor that detects a change in angular velocity, but
only discloses force or pressure sensors. Id. at 5. Appellants contend that
the meaning of “yaw” is the “extent of turning about the vertical axis.” Id.
Appellants also contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
the claimed “yaw rate sensor” as “a sensor that detects the extent of turning
about the sensitive axis over time.” Id. at 6.
Hettich discloses that when drilling tool 4 is driven to rotate to the
right about rotational axis 5, an operating bearing force F/.i occurs in bearing
16 and an operating bearing force F/2 occurs in bearing 17. See Hettich, col.
2,11. 36—39, Fig. When drilling tool 4 becomes jammed in workpiece 19,
the angular velocity of drilling tool 4 drops to zero. Id. at col. 2,11. 41—42,
Fig. 1. The motor 12 continues to run, causing housing 2 to rotate around
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw-rate_sensor
3
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
rotational axis 5 as represented by arrow cog,b- Id. at col. 2,11. 42-45. The
rotating part 14 of motor 12, now considered as a gyroscope, is also
deflected to rotate to the left around rotational axis 5, producing a change in
the torsion vector or angular momentum vector. Id. at col. 2,11. 45—51. The
resulting moment of the gyroscopic effect MK generates additional forces F^
in bearings 16 and 17. Id. at col. 2,11. 66—67. Hettich explains that:
In the effective region of the bearing forces F^, a sensor 20 for
measuring these forces is arranged at least at one of the bearings
16,17. The sensors can be force measuring devices or force or
pressure sensors which can be arranged in particular between the
housing 2 and the bearings 16,17.
Id. at col. 3,11. 1—6 (emphasis added), Fig. 1.
Appellants contend Hettich does not indicate that the rate of turning of
the housing is detected. Appeal Br. 6. Instead, Hettich discloses that
sensors 20 are force or pressure sensors that measure the force (FK) acting on
bearings 16, 17. Id. Appellants contend that sensors 20 do not detect the
yaw rate, according to Appellants’ proposed construction of this term. Id. at
7. Appellants contend that the Wikipedia article cited by the Examiner
supports Appellants’ position that a simple force sensor or pressure sensor is
not a yaw rate sensor. Id. Rather, Appellants contend, “a yaw-rate sensor is
a sensor designed specifically to detect the rate of yawing, or extent of
turning, about a sensitive axis, rather than a force or pressure which may be
related to the extent of turning about an axis.” Id. at 7—8.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Hettich discloses that the
rotating part 14 of motor 12 acts as a gyroscope when drilling tool 4
becomes jammed and housing 2 rotates as represented by arrow (Dg,b-
Hettich col. 2,11. 41—45, Fig 1. Hettich discloses that because rotating part
14 acts as a gyroscope, there is a corresponding gyroscopic effect M^, which
4
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
generates additional forces F^ in bearings 16 and 17. Id. at col. 2,11. 66—67.
Hettich discloses that sensors 20 are provided in the power tool to measure
these forces in bearings 16 and 17. Id. at col. 3,11. 1—6. Accordingly,
Hettich discloses using knowledge of the occurrence of the gyroscopic effect
which generates additional forces F^ in bearings 16 and 17, as the basis
to know these forces exist and, hence, to measure them. Hettich does not,
however, disclose or suggest that sensors 20 instead of, or in addition to,
measuring forces F^ detect a yaw rate of housing 2 and provide a rotation
parameter as a function of the detected yaw rate, as claimed.
The Examiner responds that “a force measurement is directly cause[d]
by angular acceleration which Appellants] refer[] to as a yaw rate.” Ans. 3.
But even if angular acceleration is related to force, Hettich does not disclose
or suggest using the force or pressure values measured by sensors 20 to
detect a yaw rate of housing 2. Rather, Hettich discloses that the
measurement signal from sensors 20 is transmitted to control device 21 to
determine if the tool is jammed. See Hettich, col. 3,11. 7—11. Hettich
explains that “[t]he measurement signal obtained in the manner described
above clearly shows a case of jamming, since no moment-transmitting
shocks occur in the direction F^ transverse to the operating bearing forces F/.
in normal operation.” Id. at col. 3,11. 19-23. Accordingly, Hettich teaches
that the bearing forces F^ are measured and used because this “clearly shows
a case of jamming.”
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2—8 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Hettich.
5
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
Obviousness
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Hettich does not disclose an
angle grinder, as claimed. Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner
determines that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
incorporate Hettich’s yaw rate/jam detection system into an angle grinder
because Appellants have not disclosed that the angle grinder provides an
advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Id. at
5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not articulated any reason
why it would have been obvious, based on the teachings of Hettich, for one
of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an angle grinder comprising a yaw rate
sensor, as claimed. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. The Examiner’s rejection is
based on the unsupported finding that Hettich discloses “a yaw rate sensor
configured to detect a yaw rate of the angle grinder housing and provide a
rotation parameter as a function of the detected yaw rate,” as recited in claim
1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—8
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Hettich
Rejection of claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the control and/or
regulating unit is configured to trigger a safety mode beginning at a rotation
parameter of 100 to 500 degrees per second.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s findings and reasoning for claim 9 fail to cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 8—9. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Hettich.
6
Appeal 2016-008519
Application 13/642,177
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1--9 is reversed.
REVERSED
7