Ex Parte Roth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2017

13157825 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2017)

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.
13/157,825 06/10/2011 Peter Roth 708160 8032
23548 7590 08/03/2017
LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
700 THIRTEENTH ST. NW
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3960
EXAMINER
TECCO, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
DCpatent@leydig.com
Chgpatent @ ley dig. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER ROTH, STEFAN MIESCHER,
HARALD FIELITZ, and KLAUS BERTSCH
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Roth et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 16—18, 21, and 22.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Hilti Aktiengesellschaft.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
14. A method for operating a bolt-firing device that can be
operated electrically and that assumes different device states
during operation, wherein the bolt-firing device comprises a
monitoring and/or diagnostics mechanism that monitors the
device states, and an electric drive motor that outputs drive
energy to an intermediate storage device that buffers the drive
energy and can output it in a pulse-like manner for a firing
procedure, in order to set a bolt, wherein the monitoring and/or
diagnostics mechanism monitors the electric drive motor and,
wherein operating data of the electric drive motor are detected
during operation of the bolt-firing device, comprising monitoring
the electric drive motor during operation of the bolt-firing device,
deriving the rotational speed of the electric drive motor from a
commutation frequency of the electric drive motor, recording a
rotational speed profile of the electric motor from the derived
rotational speed, and, when a disturbance of the bolt-firing
device is diagnosed, concluding, from the rotational speed
profile, as to type or cause of the disturbance.
REJECTION2
Claims 14, 16—18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simonelli (US 2009/0236387 Al, published Sept. 24,
2009) and Kastner (US 2008/0298784 Al, published Dec. 4, 2008).
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
DISCUSSION
Claims 14, 17, and 18
The Examiner finds that Simonelli discloses most of the limitations of
claim 14 including “monitoring a rotational speed profile of the electric
motor from the derived rotational speed, and, when a disturbance of the bolt­
firing device is diagnosed, concluding, from the rotational speed profile, as
to type or cause of the disturbance.” Final Act. 3^4 (citing Simonelli,
1242). The Examiner finds that Simonelli does not “disclose deriving the
rotational speed of the electric drive motor from a commutation frequency of
the electric drive motor, or that the monitored speed profile is recorded.” Id.
at 4. The Examiner finds that Kastner teaches a method “comprising
deriving the rotational speed of the electric drive motor from a commutation
frequency” and recording “the monitored speed profile.” Id. The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to combine Kastner with Simonelli so
the method would “be operated with more precision and store diagnostic
information for later use . . . without the need for additional mechanical
components or wiring.” Id.
Appellants contend that Simonelli does not disclose “concluding,
from the rotational speed profile, as to type or cause of the disturbance.” Br.
4. Appellants argue that paragraph 242 of Simonelli discloses a sensor that
checks
whether the driver is in the home position, and, if not, the motor
is pulsed to bring the driver into the home position. If the
controller detects that the motor did not travel to the specified
position within 2 seconds, it concludes that the motor does not
move. No information can be derived as to where the motor is,
or at what speed the motor moved to where it is. The rotational
speed of the motor is not determined at any point.
3
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
Id.
The Examiner responds that “[tjhere is no special definition for the
term ‘speed profile’ and it is not an art specific term.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner explains that Simonelli’s “controller 229 monitors the time
duration of the pulsing motor, if the motor does not travel a specified
distance (returns to home) in a specified time (2sec) a ‘jam’ fault
determination is made. The monitoring of distance and time is monitoring
the speed profile (speed=distance/time).” Id. The Examiner asserts that one
of ordinary skill in the art could “broadly interpret a motor failing to rotate
enough to move an element a certain distance in a certain time to read on a
‘speed profile’ of a motor.” Id.
The Examiner is correct that Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a special definition of “speed profile.” The Specification does,
however, contain guidance as to the meaning of a “rotational speed profile”
as recited in claim 14. Appellants’ Figure 4 discloses a “rotational-speed
profile 44.” Spec. 147, Fig. 4. Figure 4 illustrates “the rotational speed of
the drive motor 20 of the bolt-firing device 1 . . . plotted versus a tensioning
stroke of the spring 11.” Id.', see also id. 32—34. In the case of
Appellants’ Figure 4, the rotational-speed profile illustrates various
rotational speeds of the motor plotted against the tensioning stroke of the
spring. An ordinary meaning of “profile” is “a set of data often in graphic
form portraying the significant features of something.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profile (last accessed July 27,
2017). Thus, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand a “rotational speed profile” to mean a representation of various
rotational speeds of the motor plotted against a set of data.
4
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Simonelli of
rotational speed profiles of an electric motor. Nor has the Examiner
adequately explained how paragraph 242 of Simonelli discloses data for the
motor at various speeds or otherwise concludes the type or cause of a
disturbance from a rotational speed profile. One of ordinary skill in the art
may be able to determine the average speed of travel of Simonelli’s motor,
but the average speed of the motor does not constitute a “rotational speed
profile” of the motor as recited in claim 14. See Br. 5. We, thus, do not
sustain the rejection of claim 14 and claims 17 and 18, which depend from
claim 14, because the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Simonelli discloses concluding the type or cause of a
disturbance from a rotational speed profile as required by claim 14.
Claims 16, 21, and 22
The Examiner finds that Simonelli discloses the limitations of claim
16 except “determining the current position of an actuator ... by counting
the number of commutations of the electrical drive motor.” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that Kastner discloses “deriving position by counting
the number of commutations of the electrical drive motor.” Id. (citing
Kastner || 448, 452). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to “incorporate the steps of Kastner with the method of Simonelli” to operate
the device “with more precision and the teachings of Kastner allow for this
without the need for additional mechanical components or wiring.” Id. at 5—
6.
Appellants contend that “Simonelli does not refer to ‘total
displacement’” and “does not disclose that the alleged ‘total displacement’ is
5
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
determined by determining how far the motor has traveled.” Br. 5 (referring
to Advisory Action mailed Jan. 16, 2015). The Examiner responds that
“Simonelli is concerned with monitoring device states and the operation and
monitoring of the motor” and Kastner discloses “an alternative means by
which the motor condition, speed and displacement can be monitored in the
form of using a commutation frequency of an electric drive motor.” Ans. 4
(citing Simonelli Tflf 202, 209, 229-239, 242, Fig. 12; Kastner || 458, 471,
473, 498, 499). For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 16.
Simonelli discloses “position sensors ... to indicate the position of
the carrier.” Simonelli |199. Simonelli’s controller “verifies that the
carrier 204 is in the home position” and later verifies “whether the carrier
has made it back to the home position.” Id. Tflf 233, 237; see also id. 1242.
Thus, although Simonelli may not use the term “total displacement,” we are
not persuaded that the Examiner’s statement in the Advisory Action that
“Simonelli and Kastner are concerned with determining the total
displacement of various moving parts” is erroneous. Adv. Act. 2. Rather,
the statement is an accurate characterization of Simonelli’s controller
determining the movement (or displacement) of carrier 204 to/from the
home position by monitoring position sensors.
Appellants’ argument that Simonelli does not disclose determining
total displacement by determining how far the motor travels is not
persuasive because the Examiner relies on Kastner for disclosure of
determining the current position of the actuator by “deriving position by
counting the number of commutations of the electrical drive motor.” Final
Act. 5. Appellants do not dispute this finding and, in fact, submit that
6
Appeal 2015-007701
Application 13/157,825
Kastner “discloses that cumulative motor travel can be determined using
commutation events.” Br. 5 (citing Kastner 1448); see also Kastner 148
(“Timing signals ... are instead utilized to determine the speed and/or
position and/or total amount of rotation of the motors.”).
Appellants fail to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Simonelli
and Kastner, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by a
rational underpinning. See KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007) (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”). We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 16. With respect to
claims 21 and 22, which depend from claim 16, Appellants rely on the same
arguments as for claim 16. We sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22 for
the same reasons as for claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 17, and 18 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejection claims 16, 21, and 22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7