Ex Parte Montabaur

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

11345614 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WERNER MONTABAUR
____________

Appeal 2012-001952
Application 11/345,614
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001952
Application 11/345,614

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Werner Montabaur (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 10-15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 11 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 11 is
representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
11. A rotary tool for abrasive surface treatment, the tool
comprising:
a rotatable drive shaft;
a rotatable brush holder fixed on the shaft;
an annular brush on the brush holder and having a brush
strip and bristles protruding outwardly from the brush strip;
a pneumatic drive connectable to a compressed-air
supply and connected to the drive shaft and therethrough to the
holder for rotating same; and
means for feeding compressed air at least indirectly from
the supply to the brush holder or the annular brush for cooling
same.
App. Br. 8, Claims App’x.
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference:
Rubiano US 5,072,475 Dec. 17, 1991
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:
Claims 5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Rubiano.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-001952
Application 11/345,614

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Rubiano discloses each and every element of
claims 5 and 10-15. Ans. 4.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to the rejection,
including that Rubiano does not disclose a pneumatic drive connected
“through” the drive shaft. App. Br. 6.
Claim 11 is directed to a rotary tool for abrasive surface treatment
comprising, inter alia, “a pneumatic drive connectable to a compressed-air
supply and connected to the drive shaft and therethrough to the holder for
rotating same.”
Rubiano discloses a polishing pad cleaning apparatus including “a
pneumatic gun member, including a trigger to selectively direct pressurized
air into contact with teeth members mounted circumferentially about a
support disk.” Rubiano, Abstract.
The Examiner finds that Rubiano discloses “a pneumatic drive 11
connectable to a compressed-air supply 12, [and] a shaft 15 connected to the
holder 16.” Ans. 4. As apparent from a review of the Examiner’s rejection,
the Examiner fails to address where, if at all, Rubiano discloses a
“pneumatic drive . . . connected to the drive shaft and therethrough to the
holder for rotating same,” as recited in claim 11. The Examiner’s response
to Appellant’s argument fares no better because it fails to respond to this
specific argument raised by Appellant. See Ans. 4-6.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Rubiano discloses each and
every element of the claimed invention is not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Appeal 2012-001952
Application 11/345,614

4
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 10-15.

REVERSED

llw