Ex Parte Baines

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2002

07702615 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2002)

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today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 62
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ROGER F. BAINES
________________
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 48, 51-58, 60-67, 72, 75-79 and 93, all of the remaining
claims.
The invention is directed to an electric motor having a
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
2–
brush assembly. The brush assembly has support arms being
connected in parallel and each arm carries a respective brush
body, each body contacting a motor commutator. The support arms
have different respective resiliencies and are made of different
materials so as to have different frequencies. Such an
arrangement is alleged to provide for an improved electrical
contact since, at a motor resonant frequency corresponding to a
resonant frequency of one brush, the motor speed resonant
frequency will not correspond to the resonant frequency of the
other brush and the other brush will be less likely to lose
contact with the commutator.
Representative independent claim 48 is reproduced as
follows:
48. An electric motor brush assembly for being mounted in a
DC electric motor, comprising:
first and second resilient, electrically conductive support
arms arranged for being axially spaced from each other with
respect to a longitudinal axis of said DC electric motor when
said assembly is mounted in the motor,
the support arms being connected electrically in parallel,
each arm carrying a respective brush body, said brush bodies
being arranged for contacting a generally cylindrical commutator
of the motor,
the commutator having a plurality of circumferential
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
1Our understanding of the Japanese references is based on
English translations thereof prepared by the United States Patent
and Trademark Office. A copy of these translations are attached
hereto.
3–
segments and the first and second brush bodies being capable of
contacting a single one of said segments simultaneously when the
assembly is mounted in the motor,
each arm in combination with the respective brush body
thereof having a different respective natural resonance frequency
of oscillation;
wherein said first and second support arms have different
respective resiliencies so as to have said different frequencies;
wherein parts of said first and second support arms are made
of different materials so as to provide said different respective
resiliencies.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Mabuchi 4,705,978 Nov. 10, 1987
(Japanese Patents )1
Kato 59-30672 Feb. 25, 1984
Kojima 59-230450 Dec. 25, 1984
Takeshita 62-293953 Dec. 21, 1987
Claims 48, 51-58, 60-67, 72, 75-79 and 93 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Mabuchi, Kojima and Takashita with regard to all claims
except for claim 93. With regard to claim 93, the examiner cites
Mabuchi and Kato.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 58) and the answer
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
4–
(Paper No. 59) for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that in accordance with appellant’s
grouping of the claims, at page 4 of the brief, claims 48, 51-58,
60-67, 72 and 75-79 will stand or fall together and claim 93 will
stand or fall alone.
We further note that while the appendix to the brief shows
claim 53 depending from a nonexistent claim 43, claim 53 should
depend from claim 48.
Turning first to claim 48, the examiner takes the position
that Mabuchi teaches a motor having two sets of diametrically
opposed brush assemblies wherein each assembly has two brushes 1
contacting the same segment 4 of a cylindrical commutator. The
examiner identifies each brush as having a brush body 1 and a
support arm 2. However, the examiner recognizes that Mabuchi
does not disclose that each support arm is of a different
resonant frequency due to different materials. Thus, the
examiner turns to Kojima for a teaching of brush arms with
different weights due to different dimensions. The examiner
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
5–
contends that it is “inherent” [answer-page 4] that the different
brush arms cause a reliable brush contact with the commutator.
However, the examiner recognizes that Kojima does not teach
making the brush arms of different materials. The examiner turns
to Takeshita for a teaching of “the equivalency of different size
brushes, brushes of different materials, and a slit in one of the
brushes to change the resonant frequency between two brush arms”
[answer-page 4].
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
construct the motor of Mabuchi with brush arms having different
resonant frequencies due to different materials in the brush arms
because Kojima teaches “that different resonant frequencies in
adjacent brushes reduces (sic) noise and unequal rotation in a
motor and because [Takeshita] teaches the equivalence of changing
the resonance frequency in two brush arms by different size brush
arms, different materials in the brush arms, and a slot in one of
the brush arms, where selection of know (sic, known) equivalents
is within the ordinary skill in the art” [answer-page 4].
Appellant contends that Mabuchi does not have a brush body,
as contended by the examiner because Mabuchi is directed to
fingerleaf brushes while the instant claims are directed to a
brush assembly of the type having support arms with “each arm
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
6–
carrying a respective brush body...” The remainder of
appellant’s argument is that while the instant claimed invention
is directed to carbon leaf brushes, Mabuchi is directed to
fingerleaf brushes and that the skilled artisan would not assume
that an advance in fingerleaf brushes would be applicable to
carbon leaf brushes as well.
The examiner has particularly pointed out that, in Mabuchi,
brush shoe 1 is considered to be a “brush body,” as claimed, and
brush arm 2 is considered to be a “support arm, as claimed. We
find this to be a reasonable assessment.
Appellant contends that Mabuchi does not have a “brush
body,” but, in view of the examiner’s identification of a brush
body at element 1 of Mabuchi, appellant must show why this is not
a “brush body,” as claimed. Appellant attempts to do this by
arguing, at length, the differences between carbon leaf brushes,
alleged as being the type claimed, and fingerleaf brushes,
alleged as being the type disclosed by Mabuchi.
We note, as did the examiner [answer-page 6], that the
instant claims are not limited to “carbon leaf” brushes. The
claims do not preclude fingerleaf brushes even if appellant’s
alleged distinction between these two types of brushes is
accurate. Accordingly, appellant’s arguments directed to carbon
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
7–
leaf brushes are unpersuasive of nonobviousness.
Since appellant makes no further arguments regarding the
patentability of the instant claimed subject matter, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 48, 51-58, 60-67, 72 and 75-79
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim 93 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
examiner sets forth the rationale for this rejection at page 5 of
the answer. Appellant’s sole argument [brief-pages 6-7] is,
again, directed to the difference between carbon leaf and
fingerleaf brushes. However, this is unpersuasive of
nonobviousness of the instant claimed subject matter because
claim 93 does not recite “carbon leaf brushes” in any manner.
We would also point out that while appellant contends that,
with regard to the argument relative to claims 48, 51-58, 60-67,
72 and 75-79, “Mabuchi is directed to fingerleaf brushes” [brief-
page 4], appellant then states, with regard to the rejection of
claim 93, that “JP ‘672, like Mabuchi ‘450 and Mabuchi ‘953, is
directed to carbon leaf brushes rather than finger leaf brushes”
[brief-bottom of page 6]. Thus, unless there has been a
typographical error in this latter citation, it appears that
appellant is arguing both ways.
In any event, since appellant’s arguments do not persuade us
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
8–
of an error in the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we
will sustain the rejection of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
9–
OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403