Ex Parte Hanlon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2009

10941179 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CASEY HANLON, CALVIN C. POTTER
and PAUL T. WINGETT
____________________

Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,1791
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided:2 May 29, 2009
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to a fault-tolerant system and method for
monitoring and controlling an active magnetic bearing system (Spec. para.
0001). The invention includes a controller that receives displacement
signals from primary and secondary displacement sensors sensing rotor
displacements in each of two axes (“first” and “second”), each perpendicular
to the rotational axis. The controller further receives a speed signal
representative of a rotational speed of the rotor. In response to the four
displacement signals and the speed signal, the controller is operable to
determine operability of each of the displacement sensors (Spec. para. 0007).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An active magnetic bearing sensing and control system for
rotationally suspending a rotor that is configured to rotate about a rotational
axis, the system comprising:
a first primary displacement sensor configured to sense rotor
displacements in a first axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis and
supply a displacement signal representative thereof;
a second primary displacement sensor configured to sense rotor
displacements in a second axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis and
supply a displacement signal representative thereof;
a first secondary displacement sensor configured to sense rotor
displacements in the first axis and supply a displacement signal
representative thereof;
a second secondary displacement sensor configured to sense rotor
displacements in the second axis and supply a displacement signal
representative thereof; and
a controller coupled to receive the displacement signals from each of
the displacement sensors and a speed signal representative of a rotational
speed of the rotor, the controller operable, in response to receipt of the
2
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

displacement signals and the speed signal, to determine whether each of the
displacement signals is valid.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamada US 5,650,706 Jul. 22, 1997
Schob US 6,249,067 Jun. 19, 2001
Schob US 6,351,048 Feb. 26, 2002

Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Schob ‘048.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schob ‘048 in view of Schob ‘067.
Claims 13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schob ‘048 in view of Yamada.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Br.,” filed August 29, 2007), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 4,
2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 4, 2008) for their
respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that Schob ‘048 fails to disclose or suggest that
rotational speed is used in conjunction with displacement signals to
determine whether the displacement signals are valid (App. Br. 11).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Schob
‘048 teaches a controller operable, in response to receipt of first and second
3
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

primary and secondary displacement signals as well as a rotor speed signal,
to determine whether each of the displacement signals is valid, as the claims
require?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the invention concerns a fault-tolerant
system and method for monitoring and controlling an active magnetic
bearing system (Spec. para. 0001). The invention includes a controller that
receives displacement signals from primary and secondary displacement
sensors sensing rotor displacements in each of two axes (“first” and
“second”), each perpendicular to the rotational axis. The controller further
receives a speed signal representative of a rotational speed of the rotor. In
response to the four displacement signals and the speed signal, the controller
is operable to determine operability of each of the displacement sensors
(Spec. para. 0007).
Schob ‘048
2. Schob ‘048 teaches an electrical rotary drive, designed as a
bearingless motor (Abstract), operated by two nearly identical control
systems which can operate independently of one another (col. 4, ll. 10-12).
3. Schob ‘048 teaches executing regulation routines for the
position and the speed of the rotor, and determining required regulatory
forces and torques in order to keep the rotor 3 centered in the stator 2 and in
4
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

order to maintain the rotation of the rotor with the desired speed of rotation
(col. 23, ll. 11-17).
4. Schob ‘048 teaches that master control system 5a and slave
control system 5b each independently measure values for the position of the
rotor and/or the values for the rotor angle, and exchange these values with
each other (col. 23, l. 66 – col. 24, l. 4). The master 5a checks the values of
the slave 5b and decides which of the values are correct (col. 24, ll. 4-6).
5. The inputs to controllers 5a and 5b of Schob ‘048 are provided
by elements 81-84, which are position sensors respectively for determining
the radial position of the rotor (Fig. 11; col. 21, ll. 13-14), and magnetic field
sensors 91, 92 with which the rotor angle is determined (Fig. 11; col. 21, ll.
54-60).
Schob ‘067
6. Schob ‘067 teaches a method and sensor arrangement for the
determination of the radial position of a permanent magnetic rotor used in a
bearing-free motor, in which the magnetic flux is actively measured with
respect to placed sensors to support and drive the rotor with respect to the
stator (col. 1, ll. 6-13).
Yamada
7. Yamada teaches a control device for a salient pole type
permanent magnet motor in which reduction in torque due to
demagnetization of the magnet is prevented (Abstract).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
5
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a
prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-20
Independent Claim 1 recites “a controller coupled to receive the
displacement signals from each of the displacement sensors and a speed
signal representative of a rotational speed of the rotor, the controller
operable, in response to receipt of the displacement signals and the speed
signal, to determine whether each of the displacement signals is valid.”
Independent Claim 15 recites “determining a validity of each of the sensed
rotor displacements based, at least in part on, the sensed rotor displacements
and the determined rotational speed.”
6
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

Appellants argue that Schob ‘048 does not teach a controller operable,
in response to receipt of [the four displacement signals claimed] and a speed
signal representative of a rotational speed of the motor, to determine
whether each of the displacement signals is valid (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2).
In the Examiner’s view, Schob ‘048 teaches using the position and
speed of the rotor to control motor operation by changing regulatory force
and torque (Ans. 9; FF 3). The Examiner further notes that Schob ‘048
teaches keeping the rotor centered in the stator, and maintaining the rotation
of rotor with the desired speed (Ans. 9; FF 3). The Examiner finds that one
must know the displacement signals in order to keep the rotor centered in the
stator, and must know the speed of the rotor in order to maintain the rotation
of the rotor with the desired speed of rotation (Ans. 9).
Taking the Examiner’s findings as true, they amount to inherent
teachings regarding controlling the speed of rotation of the rotor. We do not
agree with the Examiner that these findings mean that Schob ‘048 meets the
claimed invention, however. The Examiner’s findings do not amount to a
teaching that the claimed (four) displacement signals as well as the rotor
speed signal are used by the controller to determine whether each of the
displacement signals is valid, as claims 1 and 15 require.
The Examiner correctly observes that Schob ‘048 teaches a routine for
validation of the signals from the displacement signals (Ans. 10). Schob
‘048 teaches that master control system 5a and slave control system 5b each
independently measure values for the position of the rotor and/or the values
for the rotor angle, and exchange these values with each other (FF 4). The
master 5a checks the values of the slave 5b and decides which of the values
are correct (FF 4).
7
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

The inputs to controllers 5a and 5b of Schob ‘048 are provided by
elements 81-84, which are position sensors respectively for determining the
radial position of the rotor (FF 5), and magnetic field sensors 91, 92 with
which the rotor angle is determined (FF 5). Neither Figure 11 nor any other
portion of Schob ‘048, however, teaches that either master control system 5a
or slave control system 5b receive a rotor speed signal which is then used in
the determination whether the measured displacement signals are valid.
Schob ‘048 therefore fails to teach every element of independent claims 1
and 15.
Because Appellants have established error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15, as
well as claims 2-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 not separately argued, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 8
We reverse supra the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 8
depends. We have reviewed Schob ‘067 and find that it does not remedy the
deficiencies of Schob ‘048 which we have noted. We will therefore reverse
the rejection of claim 8 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Schob ‘048
in view of Schob ‘067, for the same reasons expressed supra with respect to
claim 1.
Claims 13 and 21
We reverse supra the rejection of claims 1 and 15, from which claims
13 and 21 depend. We have reviewed Yamada and find that it does not
remedy the deficiencies of Schob ‘048 which we have noted. We will
therefore reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 21 under § 103 as being
8
Appeal 2009-001,529
Application 10/941,179

unpatentable over Schob ‘048 in view of Yamada, for the same reasons
expressed supra with respect to claims 1 and 15.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Schob
‘048 teaches a controller operable, in response to receipt of first and second
primary and secondary displacement signals as well as a rotor speed signal,
to determine whether each of the displacement signals is valid, as the claims
require.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED

ELD

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
PATENT SERVICES
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P O BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245
9