Ridge Tool Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2021003784 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022)

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. 15/826,822 11/30/2017 Christopher Schmauder RTC-41811.01 2842 40854 7590 02/23/2022 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP 38210 GLENN AVENUE WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808 EXAMINER PACHECO, ALEXIS BOATENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 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): 40854@rankinhill.com spaw@rankinhill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER SCHMAUDER, JON R. DUNKIN, and DAVID TROIKE ____________ Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14-22, 25 and 26. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ridge Tool Company as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 14 illustrates the subject matter on appeal: 14. An electrically powered device comprising: a housing defining an internal hollow region; an electric motor disposed within the internal region of the housing; a power cord receptacle selectively accessible for engagement with a power cord along an exterior region of the housing; a battery receiving region accessible along the exterior region of the housing, the battery receiving region including provisions to releasably engage a battery to the device; an electrical power converter disposed within the internal region of the housing, the converter having an input and an output, the converter being configured and including electrical circuitry effective for receiving an alternating electrical current at the input and producing a direct electrical current at the output; wherein upon engagement of a battery in the battery receiving region of the device, access to the power cord receptacle from the exterior of the device is precluded, wherein the electrical power converter receives the alternating electrical current at the input and provides the direct electrical current at the output such that a voltage of the direct electrical current at the output is less than a voltage of the alternating electrical current at the input. Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Cochran US 2004/0088817 A1 May 13, 2004 Nishikawa US 2019/0260209 A1 Aug. 22, 2019 REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 14-22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran in view of Nishikawa. OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims on appeal except for claim 21 (see generally Ans.). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant(s) to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the rejection of claims 14-20, 22, 25, and 26 for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claims 14-20, 22, 25, and 26 It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264- Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 4 65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). Appellant’s main arguments with respect to claim 14 are 1) Cochran does not teach a power convertor that reduces the voltage as recited in the wherein clause (Appeal Br. 9-11); 2) Nishikawa teaches away from any combination with Cochran because its battery pack output voltage should be same as that of the AC commercial power supply (Appeal Br. 12-14); and 3) the Examiner failed to provide an adequate reason to combine the references, especially since Cochran already teaches his device may use AC power when battery is depleted (Appeal Br. 15-17). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error as they fail to consider the breadth of the claim, the applied prior art as a whole, and the inferences that one of ordinary skill would have made, as aptly explained by the Examiner (Ans. 10-15). Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” or even routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ. Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Cf. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420)). Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 5 would have used the “less cumbersome system” of Nishikawa in Cochran to make it easier to switch voltage sources in Cochran, to result in a system that is easier to use and has a removable power cord (Ans. 15). While Appellant’s Appeal Brief has separate sections addressing each dependent claim, the arguments presented are for the most part a repeat of the arguments made for claim 14. Any additional arguments made by the Appellant for dependent claims 15-20, 22, 25, and 26, but not explicitly discussed here, have been addressed by the Examiner and are unpersuasive of reversible error for the reasons explained in the Final Office Action or the Answer. Claim 21 On the other hand, with respect to claim 21, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that it is reasonable to interpret the vacuum hose of Cochran as a drain cleaning device that includes “a rotatable drain cleaning cable” (Appeal Br. 29; Reply Br. 4-7). We are also mindful that: [t]he correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a construction that is Appeal 2021-003784 Application 15/826,822 6 “beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality of the written description” in the Specification). The Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitation when considered in light of the Specification as well as in light of the plain meaning of the claim term “rotatable drain cable.” While it may be possible to clean a drain with a vacuum cleaner as the Examiner states (Ans. 32), we agree that one of ordinary skill would not reasonably consider the vacuum hose of Cochran to be “a rotatable drain cleaning cable” as recited in claim 21 and as described in Appellant’s Specification (e.g., generally Reply Br.). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s 103 rejection is affirmed as to claims14-20, 22, 25, and 26, and reversed as to claim 21. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 14-22, 25, 26 103 Cochran, Nishikawa 14-20, 22, 25, 26 21 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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) (2020). AFFIRMED-IN-PART