Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2021

2020004344 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 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.
15/114,342 07/26/2016 Cornelius Boeck 2178-1496 1525
10800 7590 12/03/2021
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2021 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 CORNELIUS BOECK, DANIEL BARTH,
JOACHIM SCHADOW, JOERG MAUTE, JOERN STOCK,
FLORIAN ESENWEIN, and MANFRED LUTZ
________________

Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–3, 7–15, and 18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to a machine tool. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Robert Bosch GmbH is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 According to the filing on June 5, 2019, claims 4–6, 16, and 17 are
cancelled.
Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342

2
1. A power tool device for a power tool, the power tool
including a tool holder for retaining a machining tool and a drive
unit for driving the tool holder, the power tool device
comprising:
at least one open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit;
at least one drive unit sensor unit configured to record at
least one drive unit characteristic variable of the drive unit, which
can be processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control
unit at least for providing an open-loop and/or closed-loop
control of the drive unit and/or for providing an output of
information to an operator;
at least one machining tool sensor unit configured to
record at least one machining tool characteristic variable of the
machining tool, which can be processed by the open-loop and/or
closed-loop control unit at least for providing an open-loop
and/or closed-loop control of the drive unit and/or for providing
an output of information to an operator;
and further comprising:
at least one operator sensor unit configured to record at
least one operator-specific characteristic variable, which can be
processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit at
least for providing an open-loop and/or closed-loop control of the
drive unit and/or for outputting information to an operator;
and/or
at least one workpiece sensor unit configured to record at
least one workpiece characteristic variable, which can be
processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit at
least for providing an open-loop and/or closed-loop control of the
drive unit and/or for outputting information to an operator;
and/or
at least one power tool accessory sensor unit configured to
record at least one power tool accessory characteristic variable,
which can be processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop
control unit at least for providing an open-loop and/or closed-
loop control of the drive unit and/or for outputting information
to an operator.
Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342

3
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7–15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Ross (US 2013/0204422 A1;
published Aug. 8, 2013), Bullen (US 2005/0235729 A1; published Oct. 27,
2005), and Napier (US 2002/0134811 A1; published Sept. 26, 2002). Final
Act. 4–18.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ross teaches sensors sense information pertaining
to expansion assembly 104 during operation, the expansion assembly
comprises core element 130 and expandable portion 114 such that collar 158
receives expandable portion 114, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
“at least one [] tool sensor unit configured to record at least one [] tool
characteristic variable of the [] tool” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5 (citing
Ross ¶¶ 41, 139, 141, 149, 174, 178, 225, 315); Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ross
¶¶ 149, 225, 228, 232, 288). The Examiner finds Ross teaches dynamically
updating operation of the processing tool and determining whether to
produce an alert, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “which can be
processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit at least for
providing an open-loop and/or closed-loop control of the drive unit and/or
for providing an output of information to an operator” recited in claim 1.
Ans. 4–5 (citing Ross ¶ 225); Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ross ¶¶ 149, 225, 228,
232, 288). Moreover, the Examiner finds Bullen teaches a machine tool,
which the Examiner maps to the limitation “machining tool” recited in claim
1. Ans. 5 (citing Bullen ¶ 6); Final Act. 7 (citing Bullen ¶ 6). The Examiner
Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342

4
finds Napier teaches attachment interface 24 for retaining tool attachment
14, which the Examiner maps to “tool holder for retaining a [] tool” recited
in the preamble of claim 1. Ans. 6–7 (citing Napier ¶ 33); Final Act. 8
(citing Napier ¶¶ 31, 33).
Appellant argues the proposed combination fails to teach a
“machining tool sensor unit” because (1) the Examiner does not rely on Ross
to teach this feature; (2) Bullen does not teach a sensor for detecting
characteristics of a machining tool retained by a tool holder; and
(3) Napier’s tool attachments 14 are not machining tools, but instead
extensions of Napier’s drive unit of a power tool. Appeal Br. 7–8. In
addition, Appellant argues the Examiner improperly ignores the phrase “a
power tool including a tool holder for retaining a machining tool and a drive
unit for driving the tool holder” recited in the preamble of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 9–11. We disagree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, the Examiner makes new findings in the Answer.
Compare Ans. 4–5 (citing Ross ¶¶ 41, 139, 141, 149, 174, 178, 225, 315),
with Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ross ¶¶ 149, 225, 228, 232, 288). Although
Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not
sufficiently rebut the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of
Ross.
Nonetheless, Ross describes sensors (i.e., at least one [] tool sensor
unit configured to record at least one [] tool characteristic variable of the []
tool) sense information pertaining to expansion assembly 104 (i.e., tool,
which can be processed) during operation (i.e., a drive unit for driving the
tool holder), the expansion assembly comprises core element 130 and
expandable portion 114 such that collar 158 (i.e., tool holder for retaining a
Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342

5
[] tool) receives expandable portion 114, which describes the preamble
“power tool including a tool holder for retaining a [] tool and a drive unit for
driving the tool holder” and the limitation “at least one [] tool sensor unit
configured to record at least one [] tool characteristic variable of the [] tool”
recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5 (citing Ross ¶¶ 41, 139, 141, 149, 174, 178,
225, 315); Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ross ¶¶ 149, 225, 228, 232, 288). Ross
describes dynamically updating operation of the processing tool (i.e.,
processed by the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit) and determining
whether to produce an alert (i.e., for providing an output of information to an
operator), which describes the limitation “which can be processed by the
open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit at least for providing an open-loop
and/or closed-loop control of the drive unit and/or for providing an output of
information to an operator” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5 (citing Ross ¶ 225);
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ross ¶¶ 149, 225, 228, 232, 288).
Furthermore, Bullen describes a machine tool, which describes the
limitation “machining tool” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Bullen ¶ 6);
Final Act. 7 (citing Bullen ¶ 6). The Examiner finds Napier teaches
attachment interface 24 (i.e., tool holder) for retaining tool attachment 14,
which describes the “tool holder for retaining a [] tool” recited in the
preamble of claim 1. Ans. 6–7 (citing Napier ¶ 33); Final Act. 8 (citing
Napier ¶¶ 31, 33).
Appellant does not argue claims 2, 3, 7–15, and 18 separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 6–12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 12, and 13; and (2) dependent claims
2, 3, 7–11, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-004344
Application 15/114,342

6
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–15,
18
103 Ross, Bullen,
Napier
1–3, 7–15,
18