Ex Parte Desai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

12758967 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121758,967 04/13/2010
55409 7590 05/31/2018
TEMMERMAN LAW OFFICE
MATHEW J. TEMMERMAN
ONE MARKET STREET
SPEAR TOWER, 36TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Piyush C. Desai
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.
414.00 6036
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
MATHEW@TEMMERMANLA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIYUSH C. DESAI, ALI EMADI,
and UMAMAHESHWAR KRISHNAMURTHY
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BRIAND. RANGE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, 27, 30, 31, and 33. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a switched reluctance machine (SRM)
comprising a first rotor comprising a set of rotor poles and a stator comprising a set
of stator poles, wherein the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles have a
specific numerical relationship. The stator comprises first and second surfaces,
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
and the first rotor comprises a rotor surface facing the first stator surface. The
machine also comprises a second rotor having a second rotor surface facing the
second stator surface, wherein a second set of rotor poles projects from the second
rotor surface.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
dated April 25, 2016 ("Br.").
1. A switched reluctance machine comprising:
a rotor arranged to rotate about a central axis, the rotor
comprising a set of rotor poles;
a stator positioned about the central axis and laterally adjacent
and axial to the rotor, the stator comprising a set of stator poles
adjacent the set of rotor poles and spaced from the set of rotor poles
by an axial gap; and
wherein the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles are in a
numerical relationship defined by the formula:
number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator poles
(S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S> 4,
wherein the stator further comprises a first stator surface and
the rotor further comprises a rotor surface, the rotor surface positioned
generally parallel to and facing the first stator surface, each of the first
stator surface and the rotor surface facing a direction that is generally
parallel with the central axis, wherein the stator further comprises a
second stator surface on an opposite side from, and generally parallel
to, the first stator surface, and the switched reluctance machine further
compnsmg:
a second rotor arranged to rotate about the central axle, the
second rotor including a second rotor surface positioned generally
parallel to and facing the second stator surface, the second rotor
further comprising a second set of rotor poles projecting from the
second rotor surface.
The switched reluctance machine recited in claim 27 comprises a first stator
comprising a first set of stator poles, a second stator comprising a second set of
2
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
stator poles, and a rotor. The rotor comprises a set of rotor poles that is (1)
adjacent the first set of stator poles and (2) adjacent the second set of stator poles,
wherein the set of rotor poles has a specific numerical relationship with at least one
of the first or second set of stator poles.
Brief.
Claim 27 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
27. A switched reluctance machine comprising:
a first stator positioned about a central axis and having a first
lateral stator surface, the first stator comprising a first set of stator
poles;
a second stator positioned about the central axis and having a
second lateral stator surface, the second stator comprising a second set
of stator poles;
a rotor arranged to rotate about the central axis, the rotor
comprising a first lateral rotor surface facing the first lateral stator
surface, a second lateral rotor surface facing the second lateral stator
surface, and a set of rotor poles adjacent the first set of stator poles
and spaced from the first set of stator poles by a first axial gap and
adjacent the second set of stator poles spaced from the second set of
stator poles by a second axial gap, wherein each of the first lateral
stator surface and the second lateral stator surface faces a direction
that is generally parallel with the central axis;
wherein the set of rotor poles is in a numerical relationship with
at least one of the first or second set of stator poles, the numerical
relationship defined by the formula:
number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator poles
(S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S > 4.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, 27, 30, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on the enablement requirement;
3
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
(2) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the written
description requirement;
(3) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite;
(4) claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Antonopoulos et al. 1 in view of Desai et al. 2 and Cho; 3 and
(5) claims 27, 30, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Daldaban et al. 4 in view of Desai.
The rejections on appeal are sustained for the reasons provided in the Non-
Final Office Action dated June 2, 2015 ("Non-Final Act.") and the Examiner's
Answer dated October 5, 2016 ("Ans."). We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejections ( 1 }--{3)
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual
findings as to rejections (1 }-(3) or legal conclusions as to rejections (2) and (3).
See Br. 5 (generally contending that claims 1, 3, 5-9, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33 are
patentable under§ 112, first paragraph). 5 Therefore, rejections (1 }-(3) are
sustained for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 3---6 of the Non-Final
Office Action.
1 US 2004/0217668 Al, published November 4, 2004 ("Antonopoulos").
2 US 7,230,360 B2, issued June 12, 2007 ("Desai").
3 US 2006/0071576 Al, published April 6, 2006 ("Cho").
4 Ferhat Daldaban & Nurettin Ustkoyuncu, New disc type switched reluctance
motor for high torque density, 48 Energy Conversion & Mgmt. 2424--2431 (2007)
("Daldaban").
5 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. Therefore, we refer to the page
numbers of the Appeal Brief that are automatically generated in the Official file of
the instant Application.
4
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
2. Rejection (4)
The Examiner finds Antonopoulos discloses a switched reluctance machine
comprising a rotor and a stator, each having a set of poles, oriented as recited in
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds Antonopoulos does not disclose
that "the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles are in a numerical relationship
defined by the formula: number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator
poles (S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S > 4" as recited in claim 1. Non-Final
Act. 7-8. The Examiner, however, finds Desai discloses the claimed numerical
relationship. Non-Final Act. 8; see also Desai, col. 1, 11. 45-55.
The Examiner also finds the combination of Antonopoulos and Desai does
not disclose a second rotor that includes "a second rotor surface positioned
generally parallel to and facing the second stator surface, the second rotor further
comprising a set of rotor poles projecting from the second rotor surface" as recited
in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 8.
The Examiner, however, finds Cho discloses that adding additional stator
frames and rotor frames increases the torque of a machine. Non-Final Act. 9
(citing Cho i-f 31 ). Based on that teaching in Cho, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional stator
and rotor portions to Antonopoulos' modified machine to increase the torque
thereof. Non-Final Act. 9.
The Appellants argue that the claimed "SRM can include a rotor positioned
between a pair of stators that rotate about an axis unlike in Desai." Br. 8. Thus,
when the mirroring concept is included, the Appellants argue that the number of
rotor poles in the claimed invention is higher than R = 2S-2. Br. 9.
5
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
The Appellants' argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art). The Examiner relies on Desai to show the claimed numerical
relationship. Ans. 2-3. In particular, Desai discloses:
[T[he present invention provides a SRM having a salient rotor and
stator pole numerical relationship of S number of stator poles, where
S>4, and R number of rotor poles, which can be expressed as R=2S-2,
such as a S/R pole count in a 6/10, 8/14, or 10/18 configuration.
Desai, col. 1, 11. 51-55.
The Examiner relies on Cho to show that adding additional stator frames and
rotor frames increases the torque of a machine. Ans. 2, 4--5.
The Examiner finds:
[E]mploying the configuration as shown by Cho in fig. 8c with the
machine of Antonopoulos in view of Desai results in ... a second
rotor arranged to rotate about the central axle, the second rotor
including a second rotor surface positioned generally parallel to and
facing the second stator surface, the second rotor further comprising a
set of rotor poles projecting from the second rotor surface ....
Non-Final Act. 9; see also Non-Final Act. 10 (annotated Cho Fig. 8c). Thus, like
the Appellants' invention, when a second rotor is added to the machine of
Antonopoulos, as modified by Desai and Cho, the number of rotor poles will
increase. 6 See Ans. 3. The Appellants have failed to establish otherwise.
The Appellants also argue that "the concept of pole formation in the SRM is
explained differently than a permanent magnet machine as in Cho because of its
double saliency." Br. 9. The Appellants, however, do not direct us to any credible
evidence showing that the alleged difference between the machines of
6 We note that the total number of rotor poles is not recited in claim 1.
6
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
Antonopoulos and Cho would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art
from modifying Antonopoulos' machine with a second rotor as proposed by the
Examiner. Likewise, the Appellants have failed to show that the addition of
additional stator frames and rotor frames, as disclosed in Cho, would not have been
expected to successfully increase the torque in Antonopoulos' modified SRM, as
found by the Examiner. See Ans. 5.
In sum, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants do not
present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of dependent
claims 3, 5-9, 14, or 33. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 5-9, 14, and
33 also is sustained.
5. Rejection (5)
The Examiner finds Daldaban discloses a switched reluctance machine
comprising, inter alia, first and second stators. Non-Final 13. The Appellants
recognize as much but argue that Daldaban does not teach a double rotor structure.
Br. 11.
The Examiner concludes that claim 27 does not recite a double rotor
structure. Non-Final 18; Ans. 5. Mirroring the language of claim 27, the
Examiner finds Daldaban discloses:
a rotor ... arranged to rotate about a central axis ... , the rotor
comprising a first lateral rotor surface ... facing the first stator
surface ... , a second lateral rotor surface ... facing the second lateral
stator surface ... , and a set of rotor poles ... adjacent the first set of
stator poles ... and spaced apart from the first set of stator poles by a
first axial gap ... and adjacent the second set of stator poles ...
spaced from the second set of stator poles by a second axial gap ... ,
wherein each of the first lateral stator surface and the second lateral
stator surface faces a direction that is generally parallel with the
central axis ....
Non-Final 13-14 (emphasis added).
7
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
The Examiner provides an annotated copy of Daldaban Figure 2, reproduced
below, to illustrate those findings. Non-Final 14.
Daldaban Figure 2 illustrates a disc type
linear switched reluctance motor.
Significantly, the Appellants do not direct our attention to any error in the
Examiner's interpretation of claim 27 or the Examiner's factual findings.
The Appellants also argue that the combination of Daldaban and Desai
would not lead to the configuration of the Appellants' invention "since Desai limits
the number of rotor poles to R = 2S-2." Br. 11.
The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 27
does not recite a specific number or numerical range of rotor poles and/or stator
poles. Rather, claim 27 recites a numerical relationship between the number of
rotor poles and the number of stator poles. Desai describes that same numerical
relationship. Desai, col. 1, 11. 45-55.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claim 30 or claim 31. See Br. 12. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 27, 30 and 31 is sustained.
8
Appeal2017-005545
Application 12/758,967
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a).
AFFIRMED
9