Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 24, 2021

2020004829 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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. 15/061,884 03/04/2016 Daniel Wagner A 95451 6548 47988 7590 08/24/2021 WALTER OTTESEN, P.A. PO BOX 4026 GAITHERSBURG, MD 20885-4026 EXAMINER EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2021 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 DANIEL WAGNER, PATRICK BEHRINGER, MARKUS ZELLER, and ALEXANDER MAIER ____________ Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, 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 1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to a back-carried battery pack. Spec. 2. Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A back carried battery pack for an exterior load operated by a user wearing the back carried battery pack, the back carried battery pack comprising: a battery pack housing; an arrangement of rechargeable cells accommodated in said battery pack housing; said arrangement of rechargeable cells having a common electrical connection; a connecting line configured to connect said common electrical connection to the exterior load; said battery pack housing including a carrying arrangement having a back panel and left and right shoulder straps; said back panel having an outer side and an inner side configured to face a user’s back during normal use; said battery pack housing being held on said outer side of said back panel; said shoulder straps being provided on said inner side of said back panel; said back panel having an upper shoulder section and a lower back section; said shoulder straps having respective upper ends fixed to said upper shoulder section and respective lower ends fixed to said lower back section; said back panel defining an opening formed therein midway between said shoulder straps; said opening leading from said outer side of said back panel to said inner side of said back panel; said connecting line being guided through said opening and onto said inner side of said back panel; said back panel having an upper outer periphery; said connecting line being routed upwardly from said opening between said shoulder straps on said inner side of said back panel to said upper outer periphery; said connecting line being further guided along said Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 3 upper outer periphery selectively toward either said left shoulder strap or said right shoulder strap in dependence upon the exterior load operated by the user; and, left and right fastening elements configured to releasably fix said connecting line to said upper outer periphery of said back panel in dependence upon toward which one of said left and right shoulder straps said connecting line is guided. Appeal Br. 32–33 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight key recitations in dispute). Claim 13 similarly recites a back-carried battery pack which includes a back panel hole through which a connecting line is passed and guided to a back panel edge. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pelkey,2 Toya,3 Reber,4 and Tong.5 II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, and Yoshinari.6 III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, and Rodriguez.7 IV. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, and Nobles.8 2 US 9,854,897 B1, issued January 2, 2018 (“Pelkey”). 3 US 2012/0262109 A1, published October 18, 2012 (“Toya”). 4 US 2013/0162055 A1, published June 27, 2013 (“Reber”). 5 US 2008/0251550 A1, published October 16, 2008 (“Tong”). 6 US 2014/0011061 A1, published January 9, 2014 (“Yoshinari”). 7 US 5,211,321, issued May 18, 1993 (“Rodriguez”). 8 US 2009/0279810 A1, published November 12, 2009 (“Nobles”). Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 4 OPINION Rejection I: obviousness over Pelkey, Toya, Reber, and Tong With regard to Rejection I, Appellant separately argues claims 1 and 13, and does not present separate arguments concerning any of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, and 10. Appeal Br. 12–28. We address each of claims 1 and 13 below. Each remaining claim subject to this ground of rejection stands or falls with claim 1. Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Pelkey discloses a back-carried battery pack which includes a back panel hole through which a battery connecting line is guided from a battery to an outer periphery of the carrying arrangement. Non-Final Act. 3. With regard to claim 1, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to centrally locate Pelkey’s back panel hole between the carrying straps to facilitate selectively directing the battery connecting line toward electronic devices stowed in either carrying strap. Id. at 4. With regard to claim 13, the Examiner finds Pelkey discloses use of a grommet to form the back panel hole, such that the hole would have included a peripheral rim. Id. at 4. Claim 1 With regard to claim 1, Appellant argues Pelkey discloses a side opening, rather than a back panel opening, for guiding the battery cable. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Pelkey Fig. 8). Appellant contends Pelkey “shows no opening in a back plate.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Pelkey plainly depicts gusset 580 located on rear surface 220 for the purpose of permitting passage of cable 820. Pelkey Figs. 5, 8. Pelkey explains, “[c]ables are routed to an external device through an appropriate pass Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 5 through (e.g. a slot gusset 580) on the rear surface 220.” Id. 4:35–37 (emphasis added). Appellant’s further argument that Reber provides an electrical connection upper terminal box of a backpack rather than through a back panel opening, Appeal Br. 15–16, is not persuasive because, as noted, Pelkey already discloses a back panel opening. Appellant argues Reber would not have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reason to centrally locate Pelkey’s gusset opening because a centrally-located cable would “bump directly on the back of the user and so make carrying the rucksack most uncomfortable.” Id. at 18. Appellant argues Reber shields a user from cables by providing back panel cable ducts which, according to Appellant, could not be formed in the flexible material of Pelkey’s rucksack. Id.; Reply Br. 5. For those reasons, Appellant contends “a person exercising only ordinary skill would have no motivation or reason to try to change the location of the hole of Pelkey . . . so that the hole lies between the shoulder straps.” Id. at 19. Pelkey depicts gusset opening 580, 810 toward one side of rear surface 220. Pelkey Figs. 5, 8. A cable guided through gusset 580, 810 serves to power an electronic device held within a pocket located on carrying strap 912. Id. 4:61–5:4, Fig. 9. Pelkey further teaches “the device pocket can be provided on the opposing strap 910 or on both straps.” Id. 5:18–20 (emphasis added). To that end, Pelkey teaches, “gussets are located on both top sides of the backpack 100 to provide a pass through from the main compartment 210 to the exterior.” Id. 4:38–40. The Examiner relies on Reber solely as evidence of a centrally located electrical connection from which an electric cable can be directed to either side of a battery-carrying backpack. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. In light of the foregoing disclosures, Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 6 we are persuaded the Examiner’s finding that one skilled in the art would have had a reason to centrally locate Pelkey’s gusset is supported by a preponderance of the evidence presented. See also Pelkey 5:65–66 (“[T]he placement of pockets, pass throughs and the like can be widely varied.”). Appellant’s contention regarding possible user discomfort resulting from such a modification are not accompanied by evidence and, in any event, do not identify error in the Examiner’s articulated finding. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Appellant further argues Pelkey discloses cable attachment elements on only a single shoulder strap and, for that reason, would not have suggested providing both left and right attachment elements on a back panel outer periphery for selectively directing the cable to either shoulder strap. Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 7–8. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, Pelkey expressly teaches “the device pocket can be provided on the opposing strap 910 or on both straps.” Pelkey 5:18–20. The Examiner finds Pelkey’s teaching would have provided a reason to include both left and right cable attachments on the back panel, to prevent tangling of a cable with either the left or right shoulder strap to which the cable is to be directed. See Non-Final Act. 5. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding regarding potential tangling.9 Rather, Appellant acknowledges guidance 9 Appellant’s argument that Tong fails to disclose attachment elements located on a back panel periphery, Appeal Br. 21, neither addresses nor shows error in the Examiner’s reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such additional cable attachment elements as useful to prevent tangling between a cable and either shoulder strap. Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 7 from Pelkey’s gusset directly to a shoulder strap could “lead to a tangling of the cable.” Reply Br. 8. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claim 13 With regard to claim 13, Appellant presents essentially the same arguments made in connection with claim 1. Appeal Br. 24–28. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 also is sustained. Rejection II; claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites first and second pads located on the back panel, with the battery connecting line guided therebetween. The Examiner finds Yoshinari teaches providing separated pads on a backpack back panel to permit flow of air for cooling. Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner reasons the void between such pad parts on Pelkey’s backpack would have accommodated Pelkey’s battery cable for Pelkey’s disclosed purpose of selectively guiding the cable to the left or right shoulder strap. Id. Appellant argues Yoshinari “shows back pads but nowhere is there any suggestion that they can be positioned so as to permit a connecting line or cable to be passed therebetween.” Appeal Br. 29. To the contrary, Yoshinari expressly teaches a backpack pad including cushioned contact parts 61a separated by vertical recessions 61b formed between cushioned Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 8 contact parts to “ensure[] that air can pass between the padded part 61 and the user’s back.” Yoshinari ¶ 42, Fig. 2b. The fact that Yoshinari alone does not teach accommodating a battery cable within such recessions does not show error in the Examiner’s obviousness rationale based on the collective teachings of Pelkey and Yoshinari. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to provide Yoshinari’s pads on Pelkey’s backpack. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 is sustained. Rejections III and IV Appellant does not separately argue either of Rejections III and IV. Accordingly, these grounds of rejection also are sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–13 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13 103 Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13 4 103 Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, Yoshinari 4 8 103 Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, Rodriguez 8 Appeal 2020-004829 Application 15/061,884 9 11, 12 103 Pelkey, Toya, Reber, Tong, Nobles 11, 12 Overall outcome 1–13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(2019). AFFIRMED