Ex Parte Faber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

12452891 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/452,891 04/06/2010
24972 7590 09/08/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Faber
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.
1019116218 8991
EXAMINER
TRUONG, THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS FABER and GERALD ROOS 1
Appeal2015-002183
Application 12/452,891
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 13-16, 18-23, and 30-32. Claims 13, 15, 19-22, 30, and 31
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed January 17, 2014
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed February 25, 2014 (Final), the Appeal
Brief filed July 28, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed
October 1, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 26, 2014
(Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-002183
Application 12/452,891
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hyodo3 in view of
Kumagai4 and Tanaka. 5 Final 2-8. To reject claims 14, 16, 18, 23, and 32,
the Examiner adds various other prior art references as further evidence of
obviousness. Final 8-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to an electric machine. Claim 30, with the
claim clauses at issue highlighted, is illustrative:
30. An electric machine comprising:
electric coils;
a commutator;
an evaluating unit for ascertaining rotational speed data
from a ripple of a motor current signal;
a stator; and
a rotor, slots being situated on the rotor, in which
individual conductor loops of the electric coils are situated,
which are contacted to commutator segments of the
commutator, a number of the individual conductor loops of the
coils being set in such a way that a sequence of the number of
the conductor loops in an order of commutation substantially
represents a sine function,
wherein the coils include two symmetrical coil sections
which are situated geometrically parallel to each other as mirror
images to an imaginary plane going through the rotor axis,
[clause (i):] wherein the two symmetrical coil sections
are electrically connected in parallel, and wherein the two
symmetrical coil sections are connected to the commutator
3 Hyodo et al., US 2006/0087193 Al, published Apr. 27, 2006.
4 Kumagai et al., JP 07-224576, published Aug. 22, 1995.
5 Tanaka et al., US 6,774,525 B2, issued Aug. 10, 2004.
2
Appeal2015-002183
Application 12/452,891
segments such that the two symmetrical coil sections act as one
single coil with respect to magnetic poles of the stator,
[clause (ii):] wherein the commutator has a number of
commutator segments, which is not a multiple of a number of
magnetic poles.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 2-3 (emphasis added).
OPINION
Appellants' arguments focus on the Examiner's combination of
Hyodo with Tanaka. Appeal Br. 3--4. As Appellants point out, the
Examiner finds that Hyodo teaches an electric machine (motor 121 of Fig. 2)
including the feature of clause (ii) along with other features of the machine,
and acknowledges that Hyodo does not disclose feature (i). Compare Final
2---6 with Appeal Br. 3--4. According to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the coils of
Hyodo so they have the symmetrical coil sections connected as required by
feature (i) for the reasons discussed in Tanaka at column 10, lines 10-28.
Final 5.
Appellants contend that the ordinary artisan would not have made the
combination because Tanaka teaches away from feature (ii), i.e., using a
commutator with a number of commutator segments, which is not a multiple
of a number of magnetic poles. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. Appellants point
to the following disclosure in Tanaka to support their argument:
Incidentally, it is necessary from the viewpoint of
realizing uniform electromagnetic forces that the number "n" of
the coil portions 4 provided between the segments 112 is set at
a common divisor of the number of magnetic forces 102 and the
number of the slots 110. For example, when the number of
3
Appeal2015-002183
Application 12/452,891
magnetic poles is 6 and the number of the slots is 24, the
common divisors of 6 and 24 are 1, 2, 3, and 6. Thus, the
number of the coil portions can be set at 1, 2, 3, or 6.
Tanaka, col. 6, 11. 43-51 (emphasis added).
Tanaka seeks to use a number of coil portions that is a common
divisor of the number of magnetic forces and rotor slots to obtain uniform
electromagnetic forces. Id. It is not seen how this is a teaching away from
using a commutator with a number of commutator segments, which are not a
multiple of a number of magnetic poles. The portion of Tanaka relied upon
by Appellants does not discuss a relationship between the number of
commutator segments (segments 112) and magnetic poles (magnetic forces
102), and Appellants do not explain why the disclosure of a relationship
between coil portions, slots, and magnetic forces would dissuade the
ordinary artisan from using the commutator and magnetic poles in the
relationship required by claim 30, which is undisputedly taught by Hyodo.
Appellants do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's further
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the additional rejections. Thus,
for the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4