12409672 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2014

12409672 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

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. 12/409,672 03/24/2009 Lei Hao P008612-RD-MJL 1831 81466 7590 03/26/2014 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM One Maritime Plaza 720 Water Street 5th Floor Toledo, OH 43604 EXAMINER KIM, JOHN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LEI HAO, CHANDRA S. NAMUDURI, and BALARAMA V. MURTY ____________ Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Horber (US 2004/0041485 A1, published Mar. 4, 2004) in view of Michaels (US 2005/0258702 A1, published Nov. 24, 2005).2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. As an initial matter, we note Appellants only request review of the rejection of claim 5. (App. Br. 2.) The Board has no jurisdiction as to non- appealed, finally rejected claims 1 and 6-14, and Appellants have waived their opportunity to present arguments traversing the rejections of these claims, Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments the appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). The Examiner should cancel the non-appealed claims upon return of the application. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). The invention relates to “an electric machine that provides optimal operating characteristics such as a high torque to ampere ratio, a high torque to inertia ratio, and low torque ripple in the same machine.” (Spec.4 [0003].) 1 Final Office Action mailed Apr. 4, 2011. 2 Appeal Brief filed Aug. 1, 2011 (“App. Br.”). 3 To interpret the claim language, the Examiner additionally relies on Wikipedia (Winding Factor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winding _factor (last visited on Oct. 13, 2001), Kirtley (ELECTRIC MACHINERY 1-9, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2005), Fitzgerald et al. (ELECTRIC MACHINERY 152-153, 162-165 (McGraw Hill 1990), and Hendershot et al. (DESIGN OF BRUSHLESS PERMANENT-MAGNET MOTORS 3-68 – 3-69 (Magna Physics Publishing and Clarendon Press 1994). See infra. 4 Specification filed Mar. 24, 2009. Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 3 Independent 1 and appealed dependent claim 5 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A single stator electric machine comprising: a plurality of magnets for generating a first magnetic field, each respective magnet represents a respective rotor pole; a magnet holder for retaining the plurality of magnets, the magnet holder having a circular configuration with the plurality of magnets being positioned around the circular configuration of the magnet holder; and a stator disposed radially outward from the plurality of magnets for generating a second magnetic field, the magnet and the stator having a first air gap formed therebetween, the stator including a plurality of stator poles separated by slots with each of the stator poles having a concentrated winding with a respective number of turns formed around each respective stator pole, each respective concentrated winding within the stator comprising nonoverlapping phases, the concentrated windings increase an active length of the windings of the stator and reduce an overhang of each respective winding with respect to each stator pole for improving torque density and machine efficiency; wherein the number of rotor poles is at least eight, and wherein the number of rotor poles and a number of stator slots have a least common multiple of at least 36. 5. The electric machine of claim 1 wherein the concentrated windings include a winding factor of greater than 0.7. The respective positions of the Examiner and Appellants raise the following issue: Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the slot fill factor in Horber based on Michaels’ disclosure that increasing slot fill factor 23% above the conventional slot fill factor of 65% increases torque density, and that such modification would have resulted in “a winding factor of greater than 0.7” as recited in appealed claim 5 (see Ans. 5 7-8, 18-19)? 5 Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 24, 2011. Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 4 Slot fill factor is a measure of how much wire is disposed in the slot area. (See Hendershot 3-68, ¶ 3.8.5.) According to Kirtley, “[t]he simplest and perhaps best definition of a winding factor is the ratio of flux linked by an actual winding to flux that would have been linked by a full- pitch, concentrated winding with the same number of turns.” (Kirtley 5.) Appellants’ Specification similarly states: “[t]he winding factor is defined by the ratio of flux linked by an actual winding to flux that would have been linked by a full pitch concentrated winding with the same number of turns.” (Spec. [0026].) Kirtley explains, in further detail, that “the winding factor [kw] of any given winding is the product of the pitch [kp] and breadth [kb] factors: kw = kpkb” (Kirtley 5). The pitch and breadth factors, reflect[] the fact that often windings are not full pitched, which means that individual turns do not span a full π electrical radians and that the windings occupy a range or breadth of slots within a phase belt. The breadth factors are ratios of flux linked by a given winding to the flux that would be linked by that winding were it full- pitched and concentrated. (Id.) Appellants concede that both winding factor and slot fill factor may affect torque density (App. Br. 7; cf. Spec. [0026] (“The higher the winding factor value, the higher the torque density.”); Michaels [0005] (“[I]ncreasing the number of winding turns and the slot fill increases the torque density.”).) However, Appellants contend an increase in slot fill will not necessarily result in a corresponding increase in winding factor, explaining that the slot fill factor is not utilized in determining either the pitch factor or the breadth factor (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3.) Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 5 The Examiner contends Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they are based on limitations which are not recited in the claims. (See Ans. 15.) The Examiner finds the calculation kw = kpkb is used to calculate the winding factor for distributed windings, but is not used for concentrated windings, i.e., the claimed invention. (Id. at 16.) The Examiner’s finding appears to be based on a description of “winding factor” in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not authoritative evidence. Cf. Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 69 Fed.Cl. 775, 781 (2006) (“Wikipedia.com [is] a website that allows virtually anyone to upload an article into what is essentially a free, online encyclopedia.”). Appellants, in response, direct us to page 5 of Kirtley, supra, emphasizing that Kirtley states “the winding factor of any given winding” is determined by the equation kw = kpkb. (Reply Br. 2 (quoting Kirtley 5 (emphasis added)).) Based on our review of Kirtley and Fitzgerald, we find “winding factor” is a term of art which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as referring to a number calculated from the pitch and breadth factors. We have reviewed the Specification and find no indication that Appellants intended to deviate from the ordinary and customary meaning of this term.6 6 During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A patentee “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or Appeal 2012-003561 Application 12/409,672 6 The Examiner’s obviousness determination is based on an overly broad interpretation of the claim term “winding factor” as having the same meaning as (Ans. 7 (“Michaels teaches concentrated windings include a winding factor of greater than 0.7 (para.0025 discloses winding area increased up to 23% more of the conventional slot fill factor of 65% in para.0004)”), or directly related to (id. at 18-19) slot fill factor. The Examiner has not addressed Appellants’ persuasive argument that winding factor is calculated from pitch and breadth factors, which are not determined from, or directly related to, slot fill factor. (See App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2- 3.) In sum, Appellants have convinced us of reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the slot fill factor in Horber based on Michaels’ disclosure that increasing slot fill factor 23% above the conventional slot fill factor of 65% increases torque density, and that such modification would have resulted in “a winding factor of greater than 0.7” as recited in appealed claim 5. Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 5 is: REVERSED cdc restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).