Ex Parte Ayala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11410114 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

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. 11/410,114 04/24/2006 Adan Ayala TN-10381 3042 28268 7590 11/30/2012 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION 701 EAST JOPPA ROAD, TW199 TOWSON, MD 21286 EXAMINER TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2012 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 ADAN AYALA, ROBERT BRADUS, PETER E. MORRIS, PETER E. MORRIS, and MICHAEL J. PROAKIS ____________ Appeal 2009-013254 Application 11/410,114 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-013254 Application 11/410,114 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed system includes a cordless device having a movable member disposed within a housing, movable between first and second positions to indicate a condition of the battery pack. One of the housing and the member has a detent engaging a detent notch disposed on the other of the housing and member for maintaining the member in at least one of the first and second positions. (Spec. ¶ [0005]) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1: A system comprising: a cordless device having device terminals; a battery pack detachably engageable to the cordless device, the battery pack comprising a housing, at least one cell disposed within the housing, pack terminals connectable to the device terminals, a movable member disposed within the housing, the member being movable between first and second positions to indicate a condition of the battery pack, wherein one of the housing and the member has a detent engaging a detent notch disposed on the other of the housing and member for maintaining the member in at least one of the first and second positions; and a charger electrically connectable to the battery pack for charging the battery pack; wherein at least one of the cordless device and the charger have a first protrusion for moving the member between positions. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated based upon the teachings of Harrison (British Patent Number GB 2,266,003 A) (Ans. 3-4). Appeal 2009-013254 Application 11/410,114 3 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Harrison and Feldmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0280393 A1, published December 22, 2005) (Ans. 4-6). The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Harrison and Chun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0019530 A1, published January 26, 2006) (Ans. 6). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding that Harrison teaches a housing having a detent engaging a detent notch disposed on a member for maintaining the member in at least one of first and second positions (Ans. 3) is incorrect. Appellants assert Harrison does not teach a detent; rather Harrison’s teaches friction grooves and slide projections that provide frictional engagement (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has asserted grooves 14 and 16 and slide projections 18 and 20 act as a detent mechanism (Ans. 3, 8). However, the Examiner has not considered the definition of detent, which under the plain meaning of the word does not include a “groove” as Harrison teaches (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). Therefore, as Harrison does not disclose a detent, Harrison does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 13, and claims 5-10 and 14 dependent therefrom. Additionally, claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are also not obvious over Harrison in view of either Feldmann or Chun, due to their dependence on claims 1 and 13. Appeal 2009-013254 Application 11/410,114 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-16 is reversed. REVERSED llw:tkl