Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 2021

2020004654 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2021)

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. 14/359,550 05/20/2014 John DeCicco BOSC.P8775US/1000200354 2878 24972 7590 08/11/2021 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6022 EXAMINER DIBENEDETTO, MICHAEL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2021 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): nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN DeCICCO and BRETT HUBER ____________ Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 10–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 1. 2 Final Office Action entered October 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”), 1. Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant claims a portable hand tool case (independent claim 10) and a system (independent claim 17). Appeal Br. 2. Claim 10 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows: 10. A portable hand tool case, comprising: at least one first inductive charge receiving area; and at least one first adjustment unit configured to change at least one of a position and a size of at least the first inductive charge receiving area to improve inductive charging of at least one hand tool battery inserted into the at least one first charge receiving area by decreasing a distance between a charging coil of the at least one hand tool battery and a charging coil of an inductive charging device. Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1 (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered April 3, 2020 (“Ans.”): I. claims 10, 11, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baarman;3 II. claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman; and III. claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman in view of Shinde.4 FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and 3 Baarman, US 7,462,951 B1, issued December 9, 2008. 4 Shinde et al., US 2012/0091948 A1, published April 19, 2012. Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 3 each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and rejections of claims 12–16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Rejection I We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baarman. Appellant presents arguments directed to subject matter common to independent claims 10 and 17 without specifically addressing any particular claim. Appeal Br. 3. We, therefore, select claim 10 as representative, and decide the appeal as to the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17–19 based on claim 10 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Baarman discloses inductive recharging station 10 for recharging portable devices. Baarman Abstr. Baarman discloses that inductive recharging station 10 includes inductive power supply 12 and portable power station 14. Baarman col. 1, ll. 50–52; Fig. 1. Baarman discloses that inductive power supply 12 includes power supply 22 and inductive primary 24, while portable power station 14 includes inductive secondary 26. Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 4 Baarman col. 1, ll. 59–65; Fig. 1. Baarman discloses that when portable power station 14 is placed within proximity of inductive primary 24, inductive secondary 26 is energized and supplies power to power distribution system 28. Baarman col. 1, ll. 62–65; Fig. 1. Baarman discloses that power distribution system 28 includes power couplers 30, 32, 34, 36 comprised of inductive primaries that provide power to inductive secondaries 60 (charging coil of an inductive charging device) within power packs 52 (hand tool batteries) of rechargeable tools, to recharge rechargeable power sources 66 within power packs 52 (hand tool batteries). Baarman col. 1, ll. 65–67; col. 2, ll. 29–35; col. 3, ll. 27–38; Figs. 1 and 4. Baarman discloses that “inductive recharging station 10 could have a variety of physical configurations,” and Baarman describes a “wheeled tool box” configuration in which inductive power supply 12 is in the form of mat 80/90, and portable power station 14 is incorporated within tool box 84/94. Baarman col. 3, l. 66–col. 4, l. 8; col. 4, ll. 34–40; Figs. 5 and 6. Baarman discloses that the inductive primary of inductive power supply 12 is incorporated into mat 80/90, and the inductive secondary of portable power station 14 is contained within the back wall of tool box 94. Baarman col. 4, ll. 34–40; Fig. 6. Baarman discloses that tool box 94/94 includes power coupler 89/97 which, as discussed above, is comprised of an inductive primary. Baarman col. 2, ll. 32–35; col. 4, ll. 40–41; Fig. 6. Baarman discloses locating power coupler 89/97 on a side of tool box 85/94 adjacent to a series of drawers. Baarman Figs. 5 and 6. Baarman discloses that when rechargeable tools (containing power packs 52 (hand tool batteries) including inductive secondaries (charging coils)) are placed within the drawers of tool box 84/94, and tool box 84/94 is positioned near mat 80/90, Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 5 power is transferred from the inductive primary in mat 90/90 to the inductive secondary within the back wall of tool box 84/94, and is then transferred from the inductive secondary to the inductive primary of power coupler 89/97, from which it is transferred to the inductive secondaries (charging coils) of the rechargeable tools’ power packs 52 (hand tool batteries) to recharge rechargeable power sources 66 within power packs 52 (hand tool batteries). Baarman col. 4, ll. 12–16, 43–46. The Examiner finds that each drawer of tool box 84/94 corresponds to the recited inductive charge receiving area, and the mechanism for opening and closing the drawer corresponds to the recited adjustment unit. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that when a drawer containing a rechargeable tool is closed, the distance between the inductive secondary (charging coil) of the tool’s power pack 52 (hand tool battery) and a coil of the inductive primary of power coupler 89/97 decreases. Final Act. 2; Ans. 4–6. Appellant argues that although Baarman discloses tool box 84/94 including an inductive secondary contained within the back wall of tool box 84/94 and mat 80/90 containing an inductive primary, and discloses that the drawers of tool box 84/94 can be opened and closed, “nowhere does Baarman disclose that the first inductive charge receiving area’s position or size is changed.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant argues that “in Baarman, the drawer is moved back and forth by opening and closing it, but a position or size of a first inductive charge receiving area is not changed.” Id. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow. Appellant’s Specification defines an “inductive charge receiving area” as “a receiving area of the hand tool case which is provided for Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 6 accommodating at least one hand tool battery to assist in inductive charging of a hand tool battery which is inserted into the inductive charge receiving area.” Spec. p. 3, ll. 6–11. As discussed above, each drawer of Baarman’s tool box 84/94 receives and accommodates rechargeable tools that contain power packs 52 (hand tool batteries) including inductive secondaries (charging coils) that receive power from the inductive primary of power coupler 89/97, which power recharges rechargeable power sources 66 within power packs 52 (hand tool batteries). Each drawer thus corresponds to an “inductive charge receiving area” as defined in Appellant’s Specification. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, closing a drawer (inductive charge receiving area) after placing a rechargeable tool in the drawer changes the position of the drawer (inductive charge receiving area), and in so doing, decreases the distance between the inductive secondary (charging coil) of the tool’s power pack 52 (hand tool battery) and the inductive primary of power coupler 89/97 (charging coil of an inductive charging device) as recited in claim 10. Appellant argues that “the Examiner appears to be interpreting the drawer of tool box 94 shown in Figure 6 as both the at least one first inductive charge receiving area and the at least one first adjustment unit,” but “in the present invention, the at least one first inductive charge receiving area and the at least one first adjustment unit are two separate elements.” Appeal Br. 3. As discussed above, however, Examiner finds that each drawer of tool box 84/94 corresponds to the recited inductive charge receiving area, and the mechanism for opening and closing the drawer corresponds to the recited adjustment unit. Ans. 6. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 7 thus does not interpret the drawers of Barman’s tool box 84/94 as corresponding to both the inductive charge receiving area and adjustment unit recited in claim 10. We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baarman. Rejections II and III We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baarman (Rejection II), and rejection of claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as upatentable over Baarman in view of Shinde (Rejection III). We sustain these rejections because Appellant does not present arguments directed to the particular subject matter of the claims subject to these rejections. Appeal Br. 2–3. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 10, 11, 17– 19 102(b) Baarman 10, 11, 17– 19 20 103(a) Baarman 20 12–16 103(a) Baarman, Shinde 12–16 Overall Outcome 10–20 Appeal 2020-004654 Application 14/359,550 8 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED