Ex Parte Gerfast

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 16, 2011

10703656 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2011)

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.
10/703,656 11/10/2003 Sten R. Gerfast 2180
7590 12/16/2011
STEN R. GERFAST
1802 VALLEY CURVE ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEN R. GERFAST
____________

Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a magnetic coupling having fewer
components that is used for torque transmission using magnetic flux (see
Spec. 1:3-4, 22-23). Exemplary independent claims 1 and 6 read as follows:
1. A magnetic coupling comprising:
a rotating electric motor rotor, a non-touching cylinder
co-axially journalled with said rotor, with magnetic north/south
fields on the inside and outside faces of both said rotor and said
cylinder, said two magnetic north/south fields providing a
magnetic coupling between said rotor and said cylinder.

6. A magnetic coupling comprising:
an electric motor rotor energized for rotation by a stator
across a first air gap,
said rotor having a first set of a plurality of permanent
magnets,
co-axially journalled with said first rotor, a second rotor
having a second set of permanent magnets, wherein magnetic
flux from said first set couples into said second set across a
second air gap, producing torque on said second rotor.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Bowes US 5,708,313 Jan. 13, 1998
Horst US 2003/0122440 A1 Jul. 3, 2003

Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bowes.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bowes.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bowes and Horst.
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection over Bowes
Claim 1
Appellant argues that:
Bowes does not have a rotating electric motor rotor .... with
magnetic north/south fields on the inside and outside faces of
said rotor, nor does he have a cylinder with magnetic
north/south fields on the inside and outside faces of said
cylinder co-axially journalled with said electric motor rotor.

(Br. 3).
1

Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s position taking the
shaft 14 of Bowes as a part of a motor rotor is improper since the shaft is not
disclosed as having magnetic field or co-axially journalled with a cylinder
(id.). Appellant further points out a number of features and benefits of the
invention related to structural simplicity (Br. 3-4) in order to distinguish the
claimed invention over the applied prior art.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that a rotary dynamoelectric
machine necessarily includes magnets having both north and south magnetic
fields. As pointed out by the Examiner, Bowes discloses using an electric
motor in the disclosed sump pump (see Bowes, col. 1, ll. 53-58). We further
find that Bowes describes the shaft 14 as the output shaft of the motor 10,
which for any electric motor includes a rotor not shown in Figure 1.

1
We refer to the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 28, 2005.
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

4
Figure 1 of Bowes, is reproduced below:

Figure 1 of Bowes shows a cross section of the disclosed
sump pump.

In other words, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7), the shaft 14 is the
motor output shaft and an element of the rotor included in motor 10 which,
via the pump shaft 15, provides connection between the driving magnet
assembly 17 and the rotor in the motor 10 (see Bowes, col. 2, ll. 54-64).
Additionally, the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly characterizes the impeller 20 connected to
the magnet assembly 33 as the claimed cylinder, which is co-axially
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

5
journalled with the rotor of motor 10 via the rotating shaft 14/15 (see Bowes,
col. 3, ll. 16-17, 35-38, and 44-55). In that regard, we observe that the
features and properties argued by Appellant (Br. 3-4) relating to additional
shafts and reduced number of parts are not recited in claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellant contends that Bowes does not disclose a rotating electric
motor rotor with a north/south magnetic field “having north/south
magnetization on inside, and south/north magnetization on outside faces of
said cylinder and said rotor,” as recited in claim 2 (Br. 4). Appellant further
restates the arguments made with respect to claim 1 and the absence of a
rotor in Bowes (Br. 4-5), which we find to be unpersuasive.
We agree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 3) that the recited
magnetic coupling between magnets having south and north magnetization is
disclosed by Bowes (col. 2, l. 1-12). Additionally, we note that the magnet
assemblies 17 and 33 include magnet portions 41 and 43, respectively,
coupled by magnetization force (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 46-50). The
disclosure of such force implies that magnetic coupling exists between the
magnet portions connected to the rotor and the cylinder, which are
positioned such that the north/south magnetization on the inside face of the
driving magnet 17 of the rotor faces the south/north magnetization on the
outside face of the driven magnet assembly 33 of the impeller 20.
Additionally, as stated above, the driving magnet assembly 17 is coupled to
the rotor of the motor 10 while the driven magnet assembly 33 is coupled to
the impeller 33, forming a co-axially journalled cylinder.
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

6
Claim 17
Appellant argues that Bowes does not disclose the claimed feature of
“magnetic coupling provides both holding torque and running torque,” (Br.
5). As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8), Bowes discusses magnetic coupling
between the magnet portions 41 and 43 (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 46-50). We
further note that the magnetic coupling between the magnets of the motor 10
and the impeller 20 transfers the rotation of the motor 10 to the impeller,
which indicates the magnetic coupling provides the necessary torque for
holding and running.
Claim 19
Appellant argues that Bowes does not disclose that “co-axial
mounting eliminates the need for a flexible coupling,” because the reference
discusses using the flexible coupling 16 (Br. 5). The Examiner responds by
pointing to column 2, lines 58-61 of Bowes and explains that the flexible
coupling 16 may be eliminated by forming an integral shaft (Ans. 8). We
agree with the Examiner and conclude that Bowes discloses a co-axially
mounted arrangement where no flexible coupling is needed.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection over Bowes
Claim 3
Appellant contends that Bowes does not disclose a rotor energized to
rotate by a motor stator across an air gap because the reference discloses
only a shaft without mentioning a stator (Br. 6-7). The Examiner points to
column 2, lines 54-61 of Bowes and responds that the electric motor of
Bowes includes a rotor and a stator (Ans. 9). The Examiner further
concludes that known brushless electric motors would have been available to
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

7
one of ordinary skill in the art to be used in the arrangement of Bowes,
which results in two air gaps between the rotor and stator and between the
magnets 41 and 43 (id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s proposed modification to Bowes and
find that the Examiner properly concluded that using a brushless motor
would have been obvious and available to the skilled artisan as one of the
known configurations for an electric motor. As stated by the Supreme
Court, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
§ 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
Claim 5
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented for claim 3 and
further contends that the membrane 29 of Bowes is not placed in an air gap
because neither a stator face nor a rotor energized by electro-magnetic
energization is disclosed (Br. 7). We find that the Examiner has properly
read the recited “membrane” on the non-magnetic barrier 18 in Bowes which
is placed in an air gap between magnets 41 and 43 (see Bowes, Fig. 1 and
col. 3, ll. 23-26).
Claim 6
Appellant presents arguments similar to those raised for claims 1 and
3 (Br. 7-8), which were found to be unpersuasive. For the same reasons
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

8
discussed above for claims 1 and 3, we agree with the Examiner’s stated
position regarding the rejection of claim 6 (Ans. 4, 9).
Claim 9
Appellant argues that Bowes defines a hermetically sealed space
surrounding the pump shaft, which is different from the claimed “enclosing
said motor rotor hermetically” (Br. 8). The Examiner responds by asserting
that sealing the space around the pump shaft is the same as the claim
requirement because the shaft is a rotor (Ans. 9). We concur with the
Examiner and further note that the sealed space separating the shaft 14/15
from the impeller does in effect seal the rotor, which is connected to the
shaft (see Bowes, Fig. 1).
Claim 10
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 10 based on its
dependency on claim 6 and further contends that the Examiner has not
specifically explained how the impeller 20 of Bowes may be attached to
Appellant’s second rotor 110 (Br. 8). We disagree and find that the
Examiner has sufficiently explained (Ans. 4-5) how the second rotor is a part
of the impeller 20 in Bowes (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 16-29).
Claim 11
Appellant argues that the bushing or bearing 51 in Figure 2 of Bowes
provides support for the lower end of the shaft and is different from the
claimed co-axial journal which is between the first and second rotors (Br. 9).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5) that the bearing 51 provides
a co-axial journal that may be fluid lubricated. We further find that Figure 2
of Bowes shows the shaft 15 has an extension 50 that is journalled in a
bushing which provides radial support for the shaft. Therefore, the fluid
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

9
lubricated extension 50 of the shaft within the bearing 51 meets the claim
requirement.
Claim 12
Appellant relies on the same arguments made with respect to claim 6
and asserts that Bowes does not disclose the claimed membrane to prevent
gas and liquid from passing between the second rotor and the motor rotor
(Br. 9). For the same reasons discussed above for claim 6, we also agree
with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 5 and 9) with respect to the rejection of
claim 12.
Claim 13
Appellant contends that the non-magnetic barrier 18 of Bowes has a
cup-shaped portion 29 to accommodate the driving magnet assembly, but not
any pockets for the magnets (Br. 9). The Examiner responds that the barrier
of Bowes forms a membrane that includes pockets for the magnets, as shown
in the annotated portion of Figure 1 (see Ans. 10). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and point out that the pockets shown on both sides of
the barrier 18 nests the magnets 41 and 43, corresponding respectively to the
driving magnet assembly 17 and the driven magnet assembly 33 of the
second rotor (see Bowes, col. 30-42).
Claim 14
Appellant presents arguments (Br. 9-10) similar to those raised for
claims 1 and 2, which were found to be unpersuasive. As the Examiner
finds, the impeller 20 connected to the magnet assembly 33 forms the
claimed cylinder, which is co-axially journalled with the rotor of motor 10
via the rotating shaft 15 (Ans. 5). Therefore, the magnetic coupling is based
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

10
on the magnetic force occurring on the outside face of the second set of
magnets included in the impeller 20 (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 44-55).
Claim 15
Appellant contends that Bowes does not disclose the recited features
of this claim since the ferromagnetic ring in Bowes is shown to be in contact
with the second set of permanent magnets (Br. 10). We disagree. As
discussed above with respect to claim 2, magnet portions 41 and 43 are
coupled by magnetization force and are the coupling magnets separated by
an air gap (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 46-50).
Claim 16
Appellant argues the patentability of this claim based on the same
arguments presented for base claim 6 (Br. 10). For the same reasons
outlined above for claim 6, we agree with the Examiner’s stated position
(Ans. 6) that Bowes discloses magnetic coupling occurring at an end face of
the magnets 41 and 43 (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 46-50).
Claim 18
Appellant argues the patentability of this claim based on the same
arguments presented for base claim 6 (Br. 11). For the same reasons
discussed above for claim 6, we agree with the Examiner’s stated position
(Ans. 6) that Bowes discloses non-contacting magnetic coupling between the
magnets 41 and 43 across an air gap (see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 46-50).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection over Bowes and Horst
Appellant, in addition to pointing out the alleged deficiencies of
Bowes with respect to the recited features of the base claim 6, contends that
ferro-magnetic poles of Horst would not work with the pump assembly of
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

11
Bowes (Br. 11-12). Appellant further argues that the combination would not
have been obvious because Bowes discusses using strong magnets (Br. 12).
The Examiner responds by pointing out that using the magnets disclosed by
Horst in the pump assembly of Bowes reduces the manufacturing costs,
although other properties may be affected (Ans. 10-11).
We concur with the Examiner that such modification provides the
advantage of reduced manufacturing cost while the strength of the magnet
may not necessarily be diminished. Bowes also teaches that the driving
magnet assembly 17 and the driven magnet assembly 33 include a
ferromagnetic ring where the rare earth magnet portions are attached thereto
(see Bowes, col. 3, ll. 56-66). Because this portion of Bowes indicates that
using the rare earth magnetic portions improves the ferro-magnetic
properties of the magnet assemblies, modifying Bowes to have ferro-
magnetic magnets would not negatively affect the operation of the pump
(Ans. 11). Therefore, we disagree with Appellant’s challenge to the
proposed modification to Bowes and conclude that using the magnetic
material of Horst in Bowes would have taught or suggested the subject
matter of claim 8.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting the claims as being anticipated by Bowes or as obvious over Bowes
alone or in combination with Horst. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection s of claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 19, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2009-011801
Application 10/703,656

12
rejections of claims 3, 5-7, 9-16, and 18 over Bowes and of claim 8 over
Bowes in combination with Horst.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD