Ex parte Getschmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2001

08631952 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.

Paper
No.15

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HORST GETSCHMANN
_____________

Appeal No.1999-2819
Application No.08/631,952
_____________

ON BRIEF
_____________

Before URYNOWICZ, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING,
Administrative Patent Judges.

URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-
16, all the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to a rotor assembly. Claims
1 and 14 are illustrative and read as follows:
1. A rotor assembly for a dynamoelectric machine
comprising:

a shaft including an outer circumferential
surface portion having a circular cross section
defining a shaft diameter; and

a plurality of laminations, each lamination
having a central opening receiving said shaft, said
central opening defining an inner periphery
including a plurality of radially inwardly extending
compressible protrusions defining an inner diameter
Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
2
slightly smaller than said shaft diameter, said
protrusions being compressed onto said outer
circumferential surface portion of said shaft to
form a press fit between said lamination and said
shaft.

14. A method of assembling a rotor assembly for a
dynamoelectric machine comprising the steps of:

forming a shaft including an outer
circumference portion having a circular cross
section defining a shaft diameter;

forming a plurality of laminations, each
lamination having a central opening defining an
inner periphery, the inner periphery including a
plurality of radially inwardly extending
compressible protrusions defining a diameter
slightly smaller than said shaft diameter;

inserting said shaft into said central openings
of said laminations; and

compressing said protrusions against said outer
circumferential surface portion of said shaft to
form a press fit between said laminations and said
shaft.

The references relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Field II (Field) 4,423,343 Dec. 27, 1983
Nilsson 4,423,345 Dec. 27, 1983
Iseman et al. (Iseman) 5,218,252 Jun. 08, 1993
Neuenschwander 5,349,741 Sep. 27, 1994

Bosch FR 2,247,004 May 02, 1975
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Field in view of
Bosch.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Field and Bosch, further in view
of Iseman.
Claims 5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
3
103(a) over Field and Bosch, further in view of
Neuenschwander.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Field, Bosch and Neuenschwander, further in view of
Nilsson.
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 14) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12).
Appellant’s Invention

Appellant’s invention is adequately described at
pages 2 and 3 of the brief. As is evident from the
independent claims, the invention involves compressible
protrusions on the central opening of rotor laminations
to form a press fit between the laminations and a rotor
shaft.
Opinion
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6
and 7, appellant first argues that there is no suggestion
or motivation in the references or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the synchronous motor system of Field with the
drive motor stator laminations of Bosch to meet the
claimed invention. Appellant states that Field discloses
the conventional prior art structure of providing a key
connection between a rotor shaft and a rotor lamination
Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
4
and that the Bosch reference relates solely to a
structure for supporting a motor within a hollow casing
and is completely unrelated to the claimed structure of
mounting rotor laminations on a rotor shaft. The
argument is made that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider the teachings of Bosch to be
relevant to the problem of solving the expense and
distortion issues related to the prior art keyed or
splined rotor shafts.
Appellant further argues that all claim limitations
are not taught in the applied references. The position
is taken that there is no mention in Field or Bosch of a
plurality of laminations, each lamination having a
central opening defining an inner periphery including a
plurality of radially inwardly extending compressible
protrusions defining an inner diameter slightly smaller
than a shaft diameter.
The examiner explains that Bosch and Field both
involve the use of laminated cores in dynamoelectric
machines, and that a person skilled in that art would
have known that laminated cores in dynamoelectric
machines are mounted on the inner surface of a casing via
projections on the laminated cores (Bosch), or are
mounted or keyed on the outer surface of a shaft (Field).
With respect to appellant’s first argument, the
examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to
construct the rotor of Field with the projections of
Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
5
Bosch because Field suggests that the rotor laminations
be mounted on the shaft by any known means and Bosch
teaches projections to ensure a tight press fit between
laminations and the laminations’ support.
As to appellant’s second argument, the examiner
takes the position that it would have been obvious to a
person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
construct the motor of Field with laminations having a
central opening defining an inner periphery including a
plurality of radially inwardly extending compressible
protrusions defining a slightly smaller inner diameter
than the diameter of the shaft because Bosch teaches
compressible protrusions to provide a strong interference
fit between laminations and the member to which the
laminations are supported.
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have
concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
We agree with appellant that there is no motivation
to combine the stator lamination teaching of Bosch to
Field. The laminations of Bosch have protrusions on
their outer periphery to fix the position of the
laminations to outer casing 1. Application of this
teaching to Field would have resulted in protrusions on
the outer periphery of Field’s laminations, i.e., 28, 30,
32 and 34, and there is simply no reason for doing this.

Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
6
Even if there were motivation to combine the
teachings of Field and Bosch, appellant is correct that
all claim limitations are not taught in the references.
There is no teaching in Bosch or Field to mount
laminations on a shaft by providing the central opening
of the laminations with compressible protrusions to form
a press fit between the laminations and the shaft. Thus,
all the limitations of the claims are not met even when
the teachings of the references are combined.
Still further, the prior art provides no motivation
for fixing the outer protrusions of Bosch on the inner
periphery of the central opening of the laminations
taught by Field. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in this manner as indicated by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-1784
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Whereas claims 3, 5 and 8-13 depend directly or
indirectly from either independent claim 1 or independent
claim 7, the rejection of these dependent claims will not
be sustained.
Whereas independent claim 14, and claims 15 and 16
which depend therefrom, are directed to a method of
assembling a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of
laminations, each having a central opening defining an
inner periphery including a plurality of radially
Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
7
inwardly

extending compressible protrusions, the rejections of
these claims will not be sustained.

REVERSED

STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
8

SU/RWK
MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA
FOURTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO OH 43604