Ex Parte Dammertz

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 2014

11787297 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/787,297 04/16/2007 Ralph Dammertz 1576-0123 1435 28078 7590 05/30/2014 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 EXAMINER YANG, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2014 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 RALPH DAMMERTZ ____________ Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring an operating characteristic of a hand power tool and harvesting energy from the motor of the hand power tool (Spec. ¶ [0007]). Claim 7, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 7. A method of monitoring at least one operating characteristic of a hand power tool comprising: harvesting energy from the motor of a hand power tool; and storing data corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand power tool in a memory using the harvested energy. Rejections on Appeal Claims 7-10, 13-16, 21, 24-29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2006/0155582 A1; July 13, 2006) and Shearer (US 2006/0281435 A1; Dec. 14, 2006) (see Ans. 5-15). Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 22, 23, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Shearer, and Asama (US 5,929,778; July 27, 1999) (see Ans. 15-23). Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Shearer, and Hyatt (US 4,034,276; July 5, 1977) (see Ans. 23-25). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being obvious over the asserted combinations of references because those combinations do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations recited in Appellant’s claims? Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 3 ANALYSIS We review the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions the Examiner erred. We refer herein to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed May 9, 2011 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 13, 2011 (“Ans.”), and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed September 13, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Claims 7-20 With respect to claims 7 and 9, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach harvesting energy from a magnetic field associated with a motor of a hand power tool (App. Br. 7-10, 14; Reply Br. 2-4). Specifically, Appellant argues Shearer only teaches harvesting energy from two sources—ambient energy from communication transmissions and directed RF energy—neither of which is disclosed to be energy from the motor of a hand power tool (App. Br. 9). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The energy sources cited by Appellant are just examples provided in Shearer (see Shearer ¶ [0158] (“This type of RF . . . is usually generated to carry one way or two- way combinations of voice, video and data communications. The sources that the antenna can harvest from include, but are not limited to, . . . .”) (emphasis added)). Shearer teaches more broadly harvesting RF energy generally from the environment using an antenna (Shearer ¶ [0157]). The Examiner finds it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the motor of a power tool emits an electromagnetic field when in use and that this electromagnetic field is a form of RF energy in the environment as taught by Shearer (Ans. 25-26). We agree with these findings and the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 4 use the device of Shearer to harvest energy from the electromagnetic field associated with a motor of a power tool (Ans. 25-26). Appellant also argues Shearer does not teach storing data corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand power tool in a memory using the harvested energy1 (App. Br. 13-14). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner explains Brown teaches storing data corresponding to a sensed condition of the hand power tool in a memory and Shearer teaches using harvested energy (Ans. 5). Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Moreover, we note Shearer teaches providing harvested energy to the core device 22 (Shearer ¶ [0120]), which includes a memory 38 (Shearer ¶ [0114]). Appellant argues the Examiner fails to clearly articulate why it would have been obvious to modify the power tool of Brown to include the RF energy harvester of Shearer (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 5), Shearer expressly teaches RF energy harvesting is applicable to a range of devices, including power tools (Shearer ¶ [0183]-[0185]). Further, the Examiner shows some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the proposed combination by explaining how providing additional energy to a power tool using RF energy harvesting is a more efficient way of powering the device (Ans. 26-27). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 1 Appellant argues this limitation for claim 9 (App. Br. 13-14), but admits the disputed claim limitation actually appears in claim 7 (Reply Br. 4). Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 5 With respect to claim 13, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensing a condition of the hand power tool with an RFID member sensor (App. Br. 16). Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensors provided on an RFID member (App. Br. 16). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner explains Shearer teaches an RFID member and Brown teaches a sensor for sensing a condition of the hand power tool (Ans. 28). Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. With respect to claim 17, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach sensing a rotating electromagnetic field with a component, harvesting energy from the electromagnetic field using the component, and storing data corresponding to the magnitude of the sensed rotating electromagnetic field using the harvested energy (App. Br. 37-39). Appellant’s argument is premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim term “component” (see, e.g., App. Br. 38 (“FIG. 89 . . . clearly shows a harvester 20 that is separate from the sensor 32 . . . .”)). We find the term “component” is not delimited to the specific configuration Appellant proposes. For example, in Figure 89 of Shearer, the device 10 can be a “component” that includes both a harvester 20 and a sensor 32 (Shearer Fig. 89). Appellant’s argument is also premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim term “corresponding” (App. Br. 37-39). We agree with the Examiner claim 17 does not require directly storing the magnitude of the sensed electromagnetic field as long as the data relates to the energy source (Ans. 30). As the Examiner explains (Ans. 23), Shearer teaches a memory for storing data when the magnitude of the electromagnetic field is sufficient to harvest energy (Shearer ¶ [0114]). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 6 Based on our analysis above regarding claims 7, 9, 13, and 17, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate arguments for claims 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20, and relies on the same reasons for patentability stated for claims 7, 9, 13, and 17 (App. Br. 12, 15-17, 35, 39). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20. Claims 21-27 With respect to claim 21, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field associated with the motor of the hand power tool with a tag (App. Br. 18-19). Appellant’s argument that Shearer does not teach harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field associated with the motor of the hand power tool is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7. Appellant also argues Shearer does not teach an energy harvester being part of a tag (App. Br. 18). Appellant does not provide any particular definition for the claim term “tag” (App. Br. 18), and Appellant’s disclosure in Figure 1 shows a tag 118 as including a structure attached to a power tool. In that regard, Shearer teaches the RF power harvester can be integrated directly into the form factor of the device being powered (Shearer ¶ [0157]), which includes a power tool (Shearer ¶ [0185]). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Shearer teaches the claimed tag. With respect to claim 24, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensing a condition of the hand power tool with a sensor included in the tag (App. Br. 20). Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not teach sensors provided on a tag (App. Br. 20). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above with respect to claims 13 and 21, Shearer teaches a tag, and Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 7 Brown teaches a sensor for sensing a condition of the hand power tool. Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. For the reasons stated above regarding claims 21 and 24, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate arguments for claims 22, 23, and 25-27, and relies on the same reasons for patentability stated for claims 21 and 24 (App. Br. 21, 35). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22, 23, and 25-27. Claims 28-35 With respect to claim 28, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach attaching a radio-frequency identification (RFID) film to the hand power tool and harvesting energy from the motor of the hand power tool with a first antenna located on the RFID film (App. Br. 22-23). Specifically, Appellant argues the energy harvesting device in Shearer is not an RFID device because an RFID device is commonly understood to mean a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data from an electronic tag (Reply Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 28) that the energy harvesting device in Shearer is an RFID device, even under Appellant’s definition. Although Shearer does not expressly refer to an RFID device, it teaches a device with similar functionality identified by Appellant. Namely, Shearer teaches an energy harvesting device with an antenna for one-way or two-way communication in the RF spectrum (Shearer ¶ [0157]), i.e., a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data from a tag. Appellant also argues Shearer does not teach applying an RFID film to a hand power tool (App. Br. 23). As discussed above with respect to claim 21, Shearer teaches the RF energy harvester can be integrated directly into the form factor of the device being Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 8 powered (Shearer ¶ [0157]), which includes a power tool (Shearer ¶ [0185]). Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. With respect to claim 32, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach sensing data corresponding to a sensed condition with a sensor located on the RFID film (App. Br. 24-25). For the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 24 and 28, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Based on the reasoning above regarding claims 28 and 32, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate arguments for claims 29-31 and 33-35, and relies on the same reasons for patentability stated for claims 28 and 32 (App. Br. 23-24, 35-36). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 29-31 and 33-35. Claims 1-6 With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues Shearer does not teach a tag mounted on the housing of a hand power tool including a first antenna for harvesting energy from an electromagnetic field associated with the motor (App. Br. 26-31). For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 21, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues Brown does not teach the first sensor is located within the housing and the signal indicative of the first sensed condition is wirelessly transmitted to the tag (App. Br. 32-33). Specifically, Appellant argues Brown does not indicate the device 2010 is a wireless receiver or the sensors 2016 are wireless transmitters (App. Br. 32). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner explains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to transfer data from the sensors to a tag either with a wired or Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 9 wireless method (Ans. 18, 28). The Examiner also points to paragraph 59 of Brown as indicating it is well-known that data transfers can be wired or wireless (Ans. 18). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, and thus we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. With respect to claim 6, Appellant argues Brown does not teach a single antenna for harvesting energy and causing data associated with an electromagnetic field to be stored within the memory (App. Br. 34). Appellant’s argument is premised on a narrow interpretation of the claim language. Claim 6 recites storing data associated with an electromagnetic field sensed by the first antenna. Claim 6 does not require the antenna itself provide the data being stored. The Examiner explains (Ans. 25-26, 29) Shearer teaches an antenna for sensing an electromagnetic field and harvesting energy (Shearer ¶ [0157]), and Brown teaches storing data from a sensor in a memory (Brown ¶ [0040]). Appellant does not address the combined teachings of the references as they apply to the disputed claim limitation when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. For the reasons stated above regarding claims 1, 3, and 6, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims. Appellant presents no separate arguments for claims 2, 4, and 5, and relies on the same reasons for patentability stated for claims 1, 3, and 6 (App. Br. 31). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, and 5. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-35 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-001880 Application 11/787,297 10 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). AFFIRMED bar