Ex parte ANDO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2000

08414004 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2000)

The Appellant's requested oral hearing, set for July 10,1
2000, was waived in a facsimile communication received on June
5, 2000.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SHIGENORI ANDO
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
______________
ON BRIEF1
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1 through 16, which constitute all
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
2
of the claims in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A spindle apparatus comprising:
a rotary shaft;
magnetic bearing means for floatingly holding the rotary
shaft by magnetic forces; and
a combined motor and magnetic bearing device for
imparting a rotational torque to the rotary shaft and for
positionally controlling the rotary shaft by magnetic forces.
The following reference is relied upon by the examiner:
Kawashima 5,093,754 Mar.
3, 1992
Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being fully anticipated by Kawashima.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
The key feature in dispute among each independent claims
1, 2 and 10 on appeal is the feature set forth as the last
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
3
clause of the representative independent claim 1 on appeal:
a combined motor and magnetic bearing device for
imparting a rotational torque to the rotary shaft
and for positionally controlling the rotary shaft by
magnetic forces.
A similar, sightly more detailed version of this feature
is recited in independent claim 2 with a still more detailed
version and additional limitations in independent claim 10.
This claimed feature reflects the disclosed version of:
The magnetic bearing composite motor 52 is one which
is composed of the motor function for imparting the
rotational force to the rotary shaft 32 and the
magnetic bearing function for magnetically floating
and positionally controlling the rotary shaft 32.
(Specification page 8, lines 1-5)
Consistent with appellant's arguments and the disclosure,
a single device providing both motor and magnetic bearing
functions is disclosed and recited in conformable language in
each independent claim on appeal. Page 6 of the reply brief
even characterizes the disclosed magnetic bearing composite
motor 52 as an integrated structure, separate and apart from
the electro- magnets 34, 35, 36, 37 for radial magnetic
bearing purposes and separate and apart from the
electromagnets 46, 47 for axial magnetic bearing purposes.
The final rejection and answer characterizes the
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
4
examiner's common view that the claimed rotary shaft is the
rotor 1 of Figure 1 of Kawashima and the magnetic bearing
means in turn comprises electromagnets 2a, 2b. The examiner
takes the additional view at page 4 of the answer that the
rotor 1 also comprises the motor of the claim and that the
same electromagnets 2a, 2b provide the magnetic bearings
associated therewith, thus, meeting the feature of "a combined
motor and magnetic bearing device." We disagree. To the
extent that the combined motor and the magnetic bearing device
of the claim may comprise rotor 1 and electromagnets 2a, 2b of
Kawashima, there is no remaining teaching or showing of the
reference to comprise the claimed rotary shaft and the
magnetic bearing means of representative independent claim 1
on appeal. The examiner can't have it both ways.
The examiner does not rely upon the feature at column 3,
lines 49-52 that "the rotor 1 is rotated by an unillustrated
induction motor while being held afloat in accordance with the
target value (C)" which has been computed to be the midpoint
between two limit positions in accordance with the logic of
the flow chart in Figure 2 of Kawashima. Again, even
according to this teaching of a separate motor in addition to
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
5
the rotor shaft 1 of Kawashima, there is no additional
teaching of the claimed magnetic bearings associated with this
unillustrated induction motor separate from the magnetic
bearings 2a, 2b.
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
6
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that there can be
no clear anticipation of even the broad representative
independent claim 1 on appeal in accordance with the teachings
and showings in Kawashima. Since the feature of independent
claim 1 of "a combined motor and magnetic bearing device" etc.
is similarly reflected in each of the remaining independent
claims 2 and 10 on appeal, we must reverse the rejection of
all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102. As such, the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
)
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
7
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
8
Adams & Wilks
50 Broadway
31st Flr.
New York, NY 10004
JDT/dal