Claes KJELLSTRÖM

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020003955 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/409,525 12/19/2014 Claes KJELLSTRÖM ABE-209US 7165
23122 7590 04/01/2021
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
PHAM, LEDA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte CLAES KJELLSTRÖM
_________

Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, and 11–14. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Aktiebolaget
Electrolux. Appeal Brief dated January 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1.
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

2

1. A printed circuit board comprising:
an electric circuitry on a first side of the printed circuit board,
and
an electrically conductive material on a second side of the
printed circuit board, the second side being opposite the first side, the
electrically conductive material forming a common ground point for
the electric circuitry and a device contacting the electrically
conductive material;
wherein the whole surface of the second side of the printed
circuit board is positioned between the first side of the printed circuit
board and the device which the printed circuit board is arranged to
contact, with the second side of the printed circuit board in direct
physical and electrical contact with an electrically-conductive chassis
of the device which the printed circuit board is arranged to contact to
thereby form an electrical ground point common to the chassis and the
printed circuit board.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
9. A printed circuit board assembly comprising:
a printed circuit board comprising:
an electric circuitry on a first side of the printed circuit
board configured as an electric filter for filtering electric signals
of a DC motor, and
an electrically conductive material on a second side of
the printed circuit board, the second side being opposite the first
side, the electrically conductive material forming a common
ground point for the electric circuitry and a device contacting
the electrically conductive material,
wherein the device contacting the electrically conductive
material is the DC motor; and
wherein the whole surface of the second side of the printed
circuit board is positioned between the first side of the printed circuit
board and the DC motor, with the second side of the printed circuit
board in direct physical and electrical contact with the chassis of the
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

3

DC motor to thereby form an electrical ground point common to the
chassis and the printed circuit board.
Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1, 2, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Mawhinney;2
(2) claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mawhinney in view of Shibuya;3
(3) claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mawhinney in view of Lu;4
(4) claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mawhinney
in view of Shibuya, further in view of Morooka;5 and
(5) claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mawhinney in view of Shibuya, further in view of Castwall.6
B. DISCUSSION
Before we address the prior art rejections on appeal, it is necessary to
interpret independent claims 1 and 9. The preamble of claim 1 is “[a] printed
circuit board.” Appeal Br. 5. The printed circuit board comprises a first side and a
second side opposite the first side. Id. Claim 1 also recites that the whole surface
of the second side of the printed circuit board is in direct physical and electrical
contact with an electrically-conductive chassis of a device. Id. Thus, we interpret

2 US 9,072,183 B2, issued June 30, 2015, to Mawhinney et al.
3 US 2005/0214135 A1, published September 29, 2005, to Shibuya, I et al.
4 US 8,248,822 B2, issued August 21, 2012, to Lu et al.
5 US 2002/0030415 A1, published March 14, 2002, to Morooka et al.
6 US 5,664,282, issued September 9, 1997, to Castwall et al.
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

4

claim 1 as reciting a printed circuit board in combination with a device comprising
an electrically-conductive chassis.
The preamble of claim 9 is “[a] printed circuit board assembly.” Id. The
printed circuit board assembly comprises a printed circuit board, and the printed
circuit board comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side. Id. at
5–6. Similar to claim 1, claim 9 also recites that the whole surface of the second
side of the printed circuit board is in direct physical and electrical contact with the
chassis of a DC motor. Id. at 6. Thus, we interpret claim 9 as reciting a printed
circuit board in combination with a DC motor comprising a chassis. We note that
our interpretation of claims 1 and 9 is consistent with the Appellant’s arguments on
appeal.
Turning to the rejections on appeal, the Examiner finds Mawhinney
discloses a printed circuit board in combination with a device comprising an
electrically-conductive chassis. Final Act. 3, 6.7 The Examiner directs our
attention to the printed circuit board illustrated in Mawhinney Figures 3A and 3C,
and finds that the printed circuit board comprises a first side (i.e., the side depicted
in Figure 3A) and an electrically conductive second side (i.e., the side 230 depicted
in Figure 3C). Final Act. 3, 5. The Examiner finds that the electrically conductive
second side of the printed circuit board, which is opposite the first side, is in direct
physical and electrical contact with the electrically-conductive chassis 270. Final
Act. 3, 6.
The Appellant argues that Mawhinney discloses that the grounding layer or
electrically conductive side of the printed circuit board (e.g., side 230 in Figures
3B, 3C and side 130 in Figures 2B, 2C) faces away from the motor, and thus does

7 Final Office Action dated October 21, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

5

not directly contact the motor as recited in claims 1 and 9. Appeal Br. 3 (citing
Mawhinney, col. 3, ll. 14–16).
Column 3, lines 14–16 of Mawhinney states, “The shielding PCB [printed
circuit board] 110 is mounted to a motor with the grounding layer 130 facing away
from the motor, and the routing layer 120 facing towards the motor” (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds that this disclosure in Mawhinney refers to the first
embodiment illustrated in Figures 2A–2C, not the second embodiment illustrated
in Figures 3A–3D, which is relied on in the rejection on appeal. Ans. 7.8
The Examiner finds that the structure of the second embodiment illustrated
in Figures 3A–3D is opposite the structure of the first embodiment illustrated in
Figures 2A–2C. Ans. 7. For support, the Examiner directs our attention to column
2, lines 42–44 and column 3, lines 27–29 of Mawhinney. Ans. 6, 7. Those
portions of Mawhinney disclose that Figures 2C and 3A depict a top side of the
printed circuit board and Figures 2A and 3C depict a bottom side of the printed
circuit board. Mawhinney, col. 2, ll. 42–44; id. col. 3, ll. 27–29. Because the
structure of the second embodiment (i.e., Figures 3A–3D) is opposite the structure
of the first embodiment (i.e., Figures 2A–2C), the Examiner finds that the
conductive side of the printed circuit board in the second embodiment directly
contacts the motor. Ans. 7.
The Examiner’s findings are not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Mawhinney describes the drawings as follows:
FIG. 2A schematically illustrates a bottom view of a motor
terminal shielding component for an electric motor. . . .
FIG. 2C schematically illustrates a top view of a motor terminal
shielding component for an electric motor.

8 Examiner’s Answer dated March 10, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

6

FIG. 3A schematically illustrates a bottom view of a second
motor terminal shielding for an electric motor. . . .
FIG. 3C schematically illustrates a top view of a second motor
terminal shielding for an electric motor.
Mawhinney, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 10 (emphasis added).
Moreover, Mawhinney discloses that “[t]he shielding PCB 210 illustrated in
FIG. 3 is identical to the shielding PCB 110 illustrated in FIG. 1 [sic, FIG. 2] with
the addition of a plated crimping ring 270.” Mawhinney, col. 3, ll. 14–16
(emphasis added). Mawhinney discloses the “[t]he shielding PCB 110 is mounted
to a motor with the grounding layer 130 facing away from the motor, and the
routing layer 120 facing towards the motor.” Mawhinney, col. 3, ll. 14–16
(emphasis added). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that
the layer depicted in Mawhinney Figure 3A, like layer 120 depicted in Mawhinney
Figure 2A, faces towards the motor and is disposed between the motor and
grounding layer 230 (corresponding to the claimed second side), in contrast to the
arrangement recited in claims 1 and 9. See Reply Br. 29 (“at two points
Mawhinney suggests that the second side faces away from the motor, and at one
point Mawhinney suggests that the second side faces towards the motor,” thus “the
weight of the evidence indicates that the Office’s interpretation is incorrect”).
The Examiner does not rely on the remaining prior art of record to cure the
deficiency in Mawhinney identified above. Therefore, the anticipation and
obviousness rejections on appeal are not sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

9 Reply Brief dated May 4, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003955
Application 14/409,525

7

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7 102(e) Mawhinney 1, 2, 7
3, 9 103(a) Mawhinney,
Shibuya
3, 9
5, 6 103(a) Mawhinney, Lu 5, 6
11 103(a) Mawhinney,
Shibuya, Morooka
11
12–14 103(a) Mawhinney,
Shibuya, Castwall
12–14
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7, 9,
11–14

REVERSED