Ex Parte Bosga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

13458136 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
04189-P0091A 1527
EXAMINER
CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/458,136 04/27/2012
137670 7590 12/21/2016
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Sjoerd Bosga
12/21/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SJOERD BOSGA, FREDDY MAGNUSSEN,
HEINZ LENDENMANN, RAHUL KANCHAN, and
REZA MOGHADDAM1
Appeal 2015-003657
Application 13/458,136
Technology Center 2800
Before, JEFFREY T. SMITH, MARKNAGUMO, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in interest is ABB Research
Ltd. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2015-003657
Application 13/458,136
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for a machine type
identification of an AC machine based on torque direction information or
rotation information. (Spec. 111). According to the Specification, the
method comprises the steps of applying a current comprising a DC
component to the stator, and detecting torque direction information or
rotation information. (Spec. 111). Claim 1 is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the principal Brief:
1. A method for a machine type identification of an AC
machine comprising a stator and a rotor, the method comprising
the steps of:
- applying a current comprising a DC component to the
stator at a current angle which causes the rotors of a PM
and a SynRM to exert torque in different directions or to
rotate over different angles;
- detecting a torque direction or a rotation angle of the
rotor; and
- identifying the machine type based on the torque
direction information or the rotation angle information.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the 35 USC §103 (a)
rejections of claims 1, 6—8, and 12 as unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US
2008/0074070 Al, published Mar. 27, 2008) in view of Takahashi2 (JP
11055991 A, published February 26, 1999); and claims 2—5 and 9-11 as
unpatentable over Kumar, Takahashi and Nakatsugawa et al. (US 6,570,358
B2 issued May 27, 2003)
2 We rely on the English language translation of this document that has been
entered into the record.
2
Appeal 2015-003657
Application 13/458,136
OPINION3
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Kumar and Takahashi would have suggested applying a
current comprising a DC component to the stator at a current angle which
causes the rotors of a PM and a SynRM to exert torque in different
directions or to rotate over different angles as required by independent
claims 1 and 12?4
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not establish
that the cited prior art Kumar and Takahashi would have suggested applying
a current comprising a DC component to the stator at a current angle which
causes the rotors of a PM and a SynRM to exert torque in different
directions or to rotate over different angles as required by independent
claims 1 and 12.5
The Examiner found Kumar is directed to a method of measuring a
characteristic value of a motor, comparing the measured characteristic value
3 We limit our discussion to independents claim 1 and 12.
4 Independent claim 12 is directed to a device for machine type notification
that performs the steps of “applying a current comprising a DC component
to the stator at a current angle which causes the rotors of a PM and a SynRM
to exert torque in different directions or to rotate over different angles;
detecting a torque direction or a rotation angle of the rotor; and identifying
the machine type based on the torque direction information or the rotation
angle information.”
5 The statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the April 22, 2014 Final
Office Action.
3
Appeal 2015-003657
Application 13/458,136
to a known characteristic value contained in a lookup table, and identifying
the motor based on the comparison of values. (Final Act. 2—3; Kumar 131).
The Examiner found “Takahashi shows a drive system of synchronous
reluctance motor which a torque direction is determined by adjusting the
rotation angle.” The Examiner concluded that it was a well-known practice
to utilize the rotation angle to identify the rotation. (Final Act. 4).6
Appellants argue Kumar does not teach applying the current at a
current angle which can specifically cause rotors of a PM and a SynRM to
react differently by exerting torque in different directions or rotating over
different angles as required by claims 1 and 12. (App. Br. 5—9). Appellants
argue Kumar teaches applying DC current to a stator that does not involve a
rotor exerting torque or rotating. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue that
Kumar provides a system that distinguishes traction motors e.g., a 6-pole
traction motor versus an 8-pole traction motor while the motor is producing
torque by measuring electrical frequencies when the vehicle is operated at a
given speed. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2—6; Kumar || 25—26). Appellants
argue further that Takahashi and Nakatsugawa are not used to identify a
machine as being a PM versus a SynRM. (App. Br. 9—11).
We agree with Appellants that the combined teachings of Kumar,
Takahashi and Nakatsugawa fail to disclose, teach or suggest applying a
current comprising a DC component to the stator at a current angle which
causes the rotors of a PM and a SynRM to exert torque in different
directions or to rotate over different angles as required by independent
claims 1 and 12.
6 The Examiner cited Nakatsugawa as evidence of aligning a d-axis of the
rotor and the magnetic field for motor identification. (Final Act. 6; Fig. 4).
4
Appeal 2015-003657
Application 13/458,136
Kumar teaches applying DC current to a stator for determining the
type of traction motor when the motor is stationary. (H 24, 31) Kumar also
teaches methods for determining the type of machine while the motor is
producing torque. (H 25, 26). However, the Examiner has not shown that
these methods include the step of applying a current comprising a DC
component to the stator at a current angle which causes the rotors of a PM
and a SynRM to exert torque in different directions or to rotate over different
angles. (131) Takahashi teaches a synchronous reluctance machine with
means for detecting a rotor position and a method for driving the
synchronous reluctance machine with help of the position information. (H
8—9) Nakatsugawa provides motor type identification means by which the
type of motor connected to a control apparatus is identified by applying a
voltage command, then detecting the resulting current, and judging from the
detected current whether the motor rotor is equipped with a magnet and has
magnetic salience. (Col. 1,11. 59-65; Fig. 4).
Thus, the Examiner has not established that the relied-upon
disclosures are sufficient to support obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed
binder. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection
based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts
must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from
the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
ORDER
We reverse the appealed prior art rejections.
REVERSED
5