Ex Parte De Filippis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

11913601 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111913,601 11105/2007
27367 7590 09/23/2016
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pietro De Filippis
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Bl 18.12-0006 6974
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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 PIETRO DE FILIPPIS, DETLEF KEMMER,
HARALD REDELBERGER, and HERMANN SCHULZ1
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, GORDON D. KINDER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
21-24, 27-31, 34--40, and 42--45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Wuerzburg as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an electric machine comprising a rotor and
a stator. Spec., 1: 10-11. Claim 21, reproduced below, illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
21. An electric machine, comprising:
an internal rotor excited by permanent magnets and a
stator comprising windings,
magnets in an arrangement on the circumferential line of
the internal rotor such that a magnetically non-effective zone is
created around the center of the internal rotor,
at least one opening extending substantially in the axial
direction in the magnetically noneffective zone of the internal
rotor for forming an air flow path through the internal rotor,
wherein the at least one opening is configured such that the
internal rotor is substantially shaped as a hollow cylinder;
a housing for the stator and internal rotor, the housing
including a rear housing part having at least one air inlet opening,
the air inlet opening being arranged at or proximate to the at least
one opening of the internal rotor, such that the air is guided along
an electronic component and then in the axial direction through
the opening in the magnetically non-effective zone of the internal
rotor, and
a second air flow path guided in the axial direction of the
stator along and between the windings of the stator,
wherein a fan is mounted at an output side of the electric
machine at least partially outside of the housing for movement
with the internal rotor to generate an air flow through the at least
one opening of the internal rotor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gold
Denton
Hurxthal
US 2002/0187059 Al
US 2004/0036367 Al
RE 20285
2
Dec. 12, 2002
Feb.26,2004
Mar. 9, 1937
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
Vasilescu
Maeyama
WO 2004/107535
JP 2002-354752A
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Dec. 9, 2004
Dec. 6, 2002
Claims 21-23, 27-29, 30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gold, Hurxthal, Denton, and
Vasilescu. Ans. 2.
Claims 24, 31, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gold, Hurxthal, Denton, Vasilescu, and Maeyama.
Ans. 8.
Claims 39, 40, 42, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gold, Hurxthal, and Denton. Ans. 8.
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gold, Hurxthal, Denton, and Vasilescu. Ans. 11.
OPINION
Claims 21-23, 27-30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 obvious in view of Gold,
Hurxthal, Denton, and Vasilescu
Appellants argue claims 21-23, 27-30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 as a group.
Appeal Br. 7-13. We select claim 21 as representative, and claims 22-23,
27-30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 stand or fall with claim 21. 37 CPR§
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants assert that the references do not teach all the features of
claim 21. Appeal Br. 9-11. In doing so, Appellants make two challenges to
the teachings of the base reference, Gold. Appellants first contend that the
3
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
flow of air 66 entering the Gold device enters at 56 (see Gold, Fig. 2) in
front of the rear bearing and, therefore, could not enter an opening extending
axially in the magnetically non-effective zone of the rotor. Appeal Br. 10.
This argument is not persuasive because we find no requirement in claim 21
precluding air entering the housing as in Gold.
In their second challenge to Gold, Appellants contend that Gold is
inapposite because the air inlet 58 is not proximate the air inlet into the rotor.
We note that according to the Appellants' figures, an air inlet 32 (Fig. 4) is
substantially radially displaced from the at least one opening 11 (Fig. 1) into
the rotor 2, as illustrated in Figure 7. Accordingly, the meaning of
"proximate" cannot be limited to "immediately adjacent," but must be
construed broadly enough to encompass the flow path illustrated in
Appellant's Figure 7. Read in this light, the air inlet opening 56 of Gold is
"proximate" the axially oriented flow passage 70 through Gold's rotor. See
Gold, Fig. 2, i-f 37. Accordingly, we have not been shown that the
Examiner's findings concerning Gold were erroneous.
Appellants identify various features found in claim 21 that they assert
the individual references do not disclose. For example, Appellants point out
that Hurxthal does not disclose a magnetically ineffective zone in the center
of his rotor. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants draw attention to the fact that
Vasilescu's cooling air does not flow in an axial direction through the rotor
or stator windings, but rather radially. Id. at 11. Appellants point out that
Denton does not have an air inlet as located in claim 21, nor an airflow path
that first passes electronic components and then axially through the rotor.
Id. These arguments do not address the features from each reference that the
4
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
Examiner relies on, nor do they address the combination of features relied on
by the Examiner, and so are not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that there is no motivation to combine the
references as the Examiner proposes. The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A prima facie conclusion of obviousness may be
supported by a showing that the claims are directed to a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, and such modification yields a predictable result. See id. (citing
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 (1966)). The Court further stated
that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. When
considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative
question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use
of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id.
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1313-1314(CCPA1971).
In this case, the Examiner cited Gold as the base reference (Final Act.
3--4; Reply 2), and then modified Gold: (1) according to Hurxthal for its
5
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
teaching of an internal rotor excited by magnets and a stator comprising
windings with the first airflow path through the rotor and a second airflow
path axially of the stator along its windings (Final Act. 5; Reply 4), (2)
according to the teachings of Denton of permanent magnets arranged on a
rotor so that there is a magnetically non-effective zone in its center and
shaped like a hollow cylinder (Final Act. 5; Reply 4), and (3) according to
the teachings of providing airflow (first axially across electronic circuitry,
then out past the rotor and stator) as taught by Vasilescu. Final Act 5; Reply
4. Appellants do not challenge that these features are found in the
references; instead, Appellants challenge the motivation of one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings as the Examiner proposes. Appeal
Br. 11-13. But Appellants do not suggest that the claimed combination is
"more than the predictable use of [known] prior art elements according to
their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, Appellants
do not apprise us of error .. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claim 21, and claims 22-23, 27-30, 34, 35, 37, and 38, which fall
with claim 21.
Claims 24, 31, and 36 obvious in view of Gold, Hurxthal, Denton,
Vasilescu and Maeyama
Claims 24, 31, and 3 6 are dependent claims from claims 21, 2 7, and
34, respectively. Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 16-18. Because Appellants did
not separately argue claims 24, 31, and 36 (Appeal Br. 7-14), our resolution
of the issues raised regarding claim 21 is dispositive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 24, 31, and 36.
6
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
Claims 39, 40, 42, and 44-45 Obvious in View of Gold, Hurxthal,
and Denton
Appellants argue claims 39, 40, 42, and 44--45 as a group. Appeal Br.
14. We select claim 39 as representative, and claims 40, 42, and 44--45
stand or fall with claim 39. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants incorporate by reference their arguments made in
connection with claim 21. Appeal Br. 14. We do not find these arguments
persuasive for the reasons set out above. Appellants also allege the cited
prior art does not show a "fan mounted on the output side of the electric
machine at least partially outside the housing for movement with the internal
rotor to generate an air flow along an electronic component and then in the
axial direction through the opening of the internal rotor." Id. This argument
- to the extent it is an argument - is not persuasive in light of the Examiner's
Answer identifying the fan in Gold arranged in the manner claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting of claim 39, and
claims 40, 42, and 44--45, which fall with claim 39.
Claim 43 Obvious in view of Gold, Hurxthal, Denton, and Vasil es cu
Appellants make no argument for reversing the rejection of claim 43.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
43.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 21-24, 27-
31, 34--40, and 42--45 are affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-008154
Application 11/913,601
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8