Ex parte BAHN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2001

08809052 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ITSUKI BAHN
__________
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and BARRETT, Administrative
Patent Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, which constitute
all the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a polyphase
reluctance motor.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
2
1. A polyphase (N phase: N being a positive integer
greater than or equal to 3) reluctance motor comprising:
a rotor formed of a soft magnetic substance which is
provided with n units of salient poles (n being a positive
integer greater than or equal to 2) of the same width and the
same interval in a circumferential direction thereof;
a stator having m x n (m is an integer greater than or
equal to 3) units of magnetic poles which are formed by
winding an armature coil around each two adjacent slots out of
m x n units of slots formed at equal intervals in a
circumferential direction thereof, said armature coils being
connected to constitute a first-phase armature coil, a second
phase armature coil, a third-phase armature coil, through an
Nth-phase armature coil;
means for rotatably supporting said rotor with respect
to said stator armature so that said salient poles of said
rotor and said magnetic poles of said stator confront each
other through a slight gap;
position detecting units for detecting a rotational
position of each salient pole of said rotor, and outputting
first-phase, second-phase, third-phase, through Nth-phase
position detection signals of the same width, which are
successively delayed by a predetermined period;
semiconductor switching elements connected in series
to each of said first-phase armature coil, second armature
coil, third-phase armature coil, through Nth-phase armature
coil;
a DC power source which supplied power to each of said
phase armature coils through said semiconductor switching
elements connected in series therewith; and
a power-supply control circuit for controlling the
activation of said semiconductor switching elements according
to said first-phase, second phase, third-phase, through time
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
3
Nth-phase position detection signals outputted from said
position detecting units, so that said first-phase armature
coil may be supplied with power simultaneously with said
second-phase armature coil during a section, said second-phase
armature coil may be supplied with power simultaneously with
said third-phase armature coil during a section, through said
Nth-phase armature coil which may be supplied with power
simultaneously with said first-phase armature coil during a
section,
wherein a first magnetic pole formed in said stator is
magnetized simultaneously with a second magnetic pole adjacent
thereto in a predetermined direction in a manner such that one
is a magnetized North pole while the other is a magnetized
South pole, then, the second magnetic pole is magnetized
simultaneously with a third magnetic pole adjacent thereto in
a predetermined direction in a manner such that one is a
magnetized North pole while the other is a magnetized South
pole, and then, the third magnetic pole adjacent thereto in a
predetermined direction in a manner such that one magnetized
North pole while the other is magnetized South pole up to m x
n magnetic poles, thereby generating a leakage flux passing
through one of two adjacent magnetic poles, of which a
confronting area with a salient pole is smaller, which is
effective for developing a torque between the magnetic poles
and the salient pole, and of which quantity is determined
according to the quality of the magnetic flux passing through
the other of the above adjacent magnetic poles.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Konecny 4,647,802 Mar. 03, 1987
Bahn 07-046808 Feb. 14, 1995
(Japanese Kokai)
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
Our understanding of Bahn is based on a translation1
provided to us by the Scientific and Technical Information
Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of this
translation is included with this decision.
4
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Bahn in view of1
Konecny.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
5
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-4. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
6
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to sole independent claim 1, the examiner
cites Bahn as teaching a reluctance motor of the type claimed
except for the stator magnetic poles being alternately
magnetized wherein adjacent magnetic poles are in opposite
polarities. Konecny is cited as teaching a reluctance motor
with adjacent magnetic poles having opposite polarities. The
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
7
examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the
Bahn motor to have alternately magnetized stator poles as
taught by Konecny to minimize flux leakage and improve torque
characteristics of the motor [answer, pages 3-4]. With
respect to dependent claims 2-4, the examiner finds the
limitations of these claims to be the obvious result of
optimizing system parameters.
With respect to claim 1, appellant notes that the
claimed invention recites that electric current is applied to
the stator coils in an overlapping manner with alternate
magnetic polarities so as to produce an effective leakage flux
between adjacent magnetic poles. Appellant argues that there
is no such overlap of current applied in Bahn so that Bahn
does not produce any such effective leakage flux. Appellant
argues that Konecny also does not teach the production of an
effective leakage flux so that Konecny does not make up for
the deficiencies of Bahn [brief, pages 6-8].
The examiner responds that the combination of Bahn
with Konecny would “inherently” result in overlapping coil
currents which would produce a leakage flux as claimed
[answer, page 8]. Appellant responds that neither Bahn nor
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
8
Konecny teaches the presence of a leakage flux, and the
examiner’s inherency argument is based on pure speculation as
to what would be achieved if the motor of Bahn was modified in
accordance with the teachings of Konecny [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The
examiner’s rejection is based upon several speculative
assumptions as to what is taught by Bahn and Konecny and as to
what would result if the motor taught by Bahn was modified by
certain teachings of Konecny. Additionally, the examiner’s
motivation for combining the teachings of Bahn with Konecny
comes entirely from appellant’s own disclosure to achieve the
advantages of flux leakage which is only disclosed by
appellant. The examiner has essentially substituted her
beliefs and opinions for the deficiencies in the evidentiary
showings. We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing
court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima
facie case. In re Passaic, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 233 USPQ
785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
9
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354
F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Under the facts of this case, we find that the
examiner has failed to provide us with a record that
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness because the
rationale is speculative at best and there is no motivation
gained from the applied prior art for combining their
teachings. The only motivation for combining the teachings of
the references improperly comes from appellant’s own
disclosure. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
10
independent claim 1 or of claims 2-4 which depend therefrom.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1-4 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
11
STAAS & HALSEY, LLP
700 11TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
JS:caw