Robert Bosch Tool Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2020

15060693 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2020)

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.
15/060,693 03/04/2016 Robert S. Doumani 1576-1794 1047
10800 7590 02/28/2020
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
LIU, HENRY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2020 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 ROBERT S. DOUMANI, ERIC LALIBERTE,
TIMOTHY SZWEDA, and BRIAN TAYLOR
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies as real parties in interest Robert
Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch Tool Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11–17, which are the only other pending claims, have been
withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary).
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a table saw assembly having a belt
that is electrically isolated from an arbor shaft. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A table saw assembly comprising:
a motor assembly;
an electrically conductive belt operably connected to the
motor assembly;
an arbor shaft operably connected to the belt;
a drop arm assembly rotatably supporting the arbor shaft;
and
a first pulley defining an axis of rotation and rotatably
supporting the belt, the first pulley including an inner bore and
an outer surface, the first pulley configured to electrically
isolate the inner bore from the outer surface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Eck US 2005/0049096 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Garcia US 2005/0188806 A1 Sept. 1, 2005
Valle US 2008/0202284 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Choi US 2012/0285616 A1 Nov. 15, 2012
Askin US 2014/0083861 A1 Mar. 27, 2014

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Garcia, Choi, and Eck.
II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Garcia, Choi, Eck, and Valle.
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

3
III. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Garcia, Choi, Eck, and Askin.
OPINION
The Examiner found that Garcia discloses a table saw assembly
having most of the features of claim 1, but “does not teach an electrically
conductive belt; the first pulley configured to electrically isolate the inner
bore from the outer surface.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner relied on Choi
for an electrically conductive belt and on Eck for a pulley configured to
electrically isolate the inner bore from the outer surface. Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that in reading the “drop arm assembly” of claim 1
on Garcia’s arbor bracket 104 and first and second arms 125, 127 of
beveling member 124, “[t]he Examiner has misconstrued the claim.”
Appeal Br. 4. Appellant asserts that “the broadest reasonable plain meaning
of the phrase ‘drop arm assembly’ is an assembly which lets or causes an
arm to move downwardly to a lower position,” but contends that the
Specification “specifically identifies a ‘drop arm assembly’ as an assembly
which is configured to be used by a safety system to rapidly move a saw
blade beneath a work support surface in response to a sensed unsafe
condition,” thereby modifying the plain meaning of “drop arm assembly.”
Appeal Br. 5–6 (discussing a saw control system activating active shot 310
in response to a sensed condition to cause drop arm assembly 194 to orbit in
a clockwise direction moving the blade under workpiece support surface
104). Moreover, Appellant points out that the Specification describes other
systems, such as height adjust wheel 136 and height adjust carriage 142, as
well as bevel carriage 134, which move drop arm assembly 194, and the
blade, but does not identify these other systems as drop arm assemblies. Id.
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

4
at 6–7. Thus, Appellant contends that “one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the specification, would understand that not all assemblies which
lower an arm or a blade are ‘drop arm assemblies[.’]” Id. at 7. Rather,
Appellant argues, “a drop arm assembly, as used in the claims, is an
assembly which is configured to be used by a safety system to rapidly move
a saw blade beneath a work support surface in response to a sensed unsafe
condition.” Id.
Appellant points out that Garcia’s arbor bracket 104 functions to vary
the height of the arbor relative to the work surface. Appeal Br. 8. In
particular, one rotates Garcia’s hand wheel 180 to rotate gear 113 of arbor
bracket 104 to pivot arbor bracket 104 to set the height of the blade to a
desired cutting height above the work surface. Id. Appellant argues that
bevel arms 125 and 127 are used in establishing a bevel angle and have no
role in establishing the height of the blade. Id. Thus, according to
Appellant, bevel arms 125 and 127 and arbor bracket 104 “are part of an
assembly which is beveled to establish a desired blade bevel angle,” which is
similar to the function of Appellant’s bevel carriage 134 and “not the
function of a ‘drop arm assembly.’” Id. at 7–8. Appellant submits that “a
‘drop arm assembly’ is distinguished in the specification from mechanisms
such as the bevel arms [125] and 127 and the arbor [bracket] 104 which are
not used by a safety system to rapidly move a saw blade beneath a work
support surface in response to a sensed unsafe condition.” Id. at 8; see also
Reply Br. 2–4 (citing In re Smith International, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–
83 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

5
The Federal Circuit has described the correct inquiry for determining
the broadest reasonable construction as follows:
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is
not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the
specification.”
In re Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382–83 (holding that the Board’s construction of
the claim term “body” as including components consistently identified and
described in the appellant’s patent application specification separately from
the “body” was “unreasonable” because it gave “the term ‘body’ . . . a
strained breadth in the face of the otherwise different description in the
specification”).
As described in Appellant’s Specification, and as recited in claim 1,
“drop arm assembly 194” rotatably supports slave pulley 192 (i.e., the pulley
mounted on arbor shaft 240). See Spec. ¶¶ 98, 109. Appellant’s height
adjust carriage 142 supports motor assembly 160, including offset drive
shaft 164, on which pulley 166 is mounted. Id. ¶ 96; Fig. 4. Appellant’s
“drop arm assembly 194 is movably connected to the height adjust carriage
142 by an orbit shaft 200,” and height adjust carriage 142 is nonrotatably,
but linearly movably attached to bevel carriage 134. Spec. ¶¶ 92–93, 100;
Figs. 2, 3, 16, 33–35. In order to adjust the height of blade 118 above the
workpiece support surface prior to a cutting operation, the operator rotates
height adjust wheel 136, which in turn rotates bevel gear 138, which is
engaged with threaded rod 140, to raise or lower height adjust carriage 142,
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

6
thereby raising or lowering pulleys 166 and 192, belt 162, and blade 118.
Spec. ¶ 92. In order to adjust the bevel angle of blade 118, the operator uses
bevel adjust lock 132 to pivot bevel carriage 134. Id.
Appellant’s drop arm assembly 194 includes drop arm frame 242,
which rotatably supports arbor shaft 240. Spec. ¶ 109. However,
Appellant’s Specification describes Appellant’s drop arm assembly 194 as
including additional structure, such as spring 246, alignment pins 278, strike
pin 280, and latch pin 282, specifically adapted to cooperate with a rapid-fire
actuator system, such as a pyrotechnic shot, to cause drop arm assembly 194
to pivot about orbit shaft 200 to move arbor shaft 240 and blade 118
supported by drop arm assembly 194 rapidly beneath workpiece support
surface 104 in response to a sensed unsafe condition. Id. ¶¶ 109–144. Thus,
as described in Appellant’s Specification, drop arm assembly 194 is more
than simply a support frame or bracket for supporting the arbor shaft and
serves a function that is different from that of either height adjust carriage
142 or bevel carriage 134. Appellant’s Specification supports Appellant’s
assertion that “a drop arm assembly, as used in the claims, is an assembly
which is configured to be used by a safety system to rapidly move a saw
blade beneath a work support surface in response to a sensed unsafe
condition” (Appeal Br. 7), as distinguished from structure configured to be
used to adjust the height or bevel angle of the blade manually for a cutting
operation (id. at 7–8).
Garcia’s arbor bracket 104 supports arbor shaft 200 and includes gear
segment 113, which engages with height worm gear 183 of Garcia’s height
adjustment assembly to vary the height of the arbor shaft, and hence the
blade, with respect to the workpiece support surface prior to a cutting
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

7
operation. Garcia ¶¶ 64, 90. Much like with Appellant’s height adjust
carriage 142, an operator rotates a height adjust hand wheel (hand wheel
180), thereby rotating height worm gear 183, which engages with gear
segment 113 to either raise or lower saw blade 106. Id. ¶ 90; Figs. 2B, 8.
Garcia’s bevel arms 125 and 127 are part of beveling member 124,
which is a component of bevel assembly 118. Garcia ¶¶ 62, 67; Figs. 9A,
9B. In order to adjust the bevel angle of the saw blade, an operator turns
hand wheel 170 to rotate trunnion 122, which engages with bevel member
124, thereby tilting bevel member 124, which supports the saw blade
through arbor bracket 104. See id. ¶¶ 71, 72, 75; Figs. 9A, 9B, 10.
Unlike Appellant’s drop arm assembly, arbor bracket 104 and arms
125, 127 of bevel member 124 of Garcia are not specifically adapted to
cooperate with a rapid-fire actuator system to lower the saw blade rapidly
beneath the workpiece support surface in response to a sensed unsafe
condition. Rather, arbor bracket 104, with its gear segment 113, is
specifically adapted to cooperate with Garcia’s height adjustment assembly,
with its height worm gear 183 and hand wheel 180, to adjust manually the
height of the saw blade above the workpiece support surface for a cutting
operation. Garcia’s bevel arms 125 and 127, as discussed above, are part of
bevel member 124, which is specifically configured to cooperate with
trunnion 122 and hand wheel 170 of Garcia’s bevel assembly to adjust
manually the bevel angle of the saw blade.
We, therefore, agree with Appellant that, in reading the “drop arm
assembly” of claim 1 on arbor bracket 104 and first and second arms 125,
127 of beveling member 124 of Garcia, the Examiner improperly construed
“drop arm assembly” as including components (i.e., parts of a bevel carriage
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

8
or bevel assembly) consistently described in Appellant’s Specification
separately from the “drop arm assembly.” Rather than an assembly
configured to adjust the height and/or bevel angle of the saw blade above the
workpiece surface for a cutting operation, as discussed above, Appellant’s
Specification describes the drop arm assembly as configured to be used by a
safety system to move a saw blade rapidly beneath a work support surface in
response to a sensed unsafe condition.
Thus, like the Board’s construction of the term “body” in In re Smith,
the Examiner’s construction of “drop arm assembly” in claim 1 as reading
on Garcia’s arbor bracket 104 and bevel arms 125 and 127 is unreasonable
because it gives the term “drop arm assembly” a strained breadth in the face
of the otherwise different description in Appellant’s Specification, thereby
fatally tainting the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1
would have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or claims 2–7 and 9, which depend from claim 1, as unpatentable
over Garcia, Choi, and Eck.
The aforementioned defect in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 also
pervades the rejections of claims 8 and 10, which depend from claim 1. See
Final Act. 5–6. Accordingly, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Garcia, Choi, Eck, and Valle, or the
rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Garcia, Choi, Eck, and Askin.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9 103 Garcia, Choi, Eck 1–7, 9
8 103 Garcia, Choi, Eck,
Valle
8
Appeal 2019-004706
Application 15/060,693

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10 103 Garcia, Choi, Eck,
Askin
10
Overall
Outcome:
1–10

REVERSED