Ex Parte MontabaurDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 201311345614 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation