Ex Parte Castle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201412021740 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/021,740 01/29/2008 Harold L. Castle 81165019 4402 28395 7590 04/23/2014 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER GONZALEZ QUINONE, JOSE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2014 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 HAROLD L. CASTLE and DAVID M. DOKAS ____________ Appeal 2012-004816 Application 12/021,740 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 6, 9, 14, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-004816 Application 12/021,740 2 Claims 6 and 14 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added): 6. An automotive brushless electric motor system comprising: a stator including a plurality of pairs of windings, each of the pairs of windings (i) formed from a continuous wire having no more than one interpole common electrical connection and (ii) electrically connected in parallel, wherein one of the windings of each of the pairs of windings has a clockwise wind direction and the other of the windings of each of the pairs of windings has a counterclockwise wind direction, wherein the interpole common electrical connections are fused together at a common location, and wherein a magnetic field is generated when electrical current flows through the windings; and a rotor being configured to rotate in response to the generated magnetic field. 14. An automotive brushless electric motor system comprising: a stator including a plurality of pairs of windings, each of the pairs (i) formed from a continuous wire having no more than one interpole common electrical connection and (ii) electrically connected in parallel, wherein the interpole common electrical connections are fused together at a common location; and a rotor operatively arranged with the stator. The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following rejections: Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Knoll (US 6,784,584 B2, issued Aug. 31, 2004); and Claims 6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knoll in view of Abukawa (US 6,335,582 B1, issued Jan. 1, 2002). Appeal 2012-004816 Application 12/021,740 3 PRINCIPLES OF LAW [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631-32 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also, In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (internal citation omitted)). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown how Knoll identically discloses that "the interpole common electrical connections are Appeal 2012-004816 Application 12/021,740 4 fused together at a common location" as recited in claims 6 and 14. A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitations when considered in light of the Specification for the reasons explained in the briefs (see generally, App. Br. 3, 4; Reply Br. 2 (explaining that the plain meaning of “fused together at a common location” means that the interpole connections are in physical contact with each other)). Therefore, in light of the Specification which shows that the interpole common electrical connections are fused together at crimp 34 (Spec. 7:27- 29, Figs. 1 and 6), we are persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of the disputed claim language is overly broad and not reasonable. As such, we cannot sustain this anticipation rejection. The Examiner does not rely upon Abukawa, or any other reasoning, to remedy this deficiency. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections are reversed. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections. ORDER REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation