Ex Parte Havard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12956480 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/956,480 11/30/2010
134777 7590
Winstead PC (Lennox)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
09/26/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harold Gene Havard JR.
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.
44781-P036US (Pl00042) 9448
EXAMINER
ZOLLINGER, NATHAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
lennoxdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD GENE HAVARD, JR. and
P ANTELIS HATZIKAZAKIS
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
Technology Center 3700
Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lennox Industries, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A synchronous air blower for an HV AC system,
compnsmg:
a permanent magnet motor having a motor shaft with a
first cogged sprocket attached thereto;
a fan having a fan shaft with a second cogged sprocket
attached thereto; and
a synchronous belt coupled to said motor shaft and said
fan shaft via said first and second cogged sprockets, said
synchronous belt having teeth configured to mate with said first
cogged sprocket and said second cogged sprocket.
Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 16-19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ross,2 Marietti3 or Jones,4 and
Goransson. 5 Final Act. 2--4.
2. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ross, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Cole. 6 Final Act.
4.
3. Claims 4, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ross, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Davis.7 Final
Act. 4--5.
2 US 2004/0145324 Al, published July 29, 2004.
3 US 5,800,132, issued Sept. 1, 1998.
4 US 6,372,052 Bl, issued Apr. 16, 2002.
5 US 2004/0168844 Al, published Sept. 2, 2004.
6 US 2007/0227470 Al, published Oct. 4, 2007.
7 US 4,150,913, issued Apr. 24, 1979.
2
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ross, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Brody.8 Final
Act. 5-6.
5. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Moore,9 Marietti or Jones, and Goransson.
Final Act. 6-8.
6. Claims 4, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Moore, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Davis. Final
Act. 8.
7. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moore, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Brody. Final
Act. 9.
8. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gebhardt, 10 Marietti or Jones, and Goransson.
Final Act. 9-11.
9. Claims 4, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gebhardt, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Davis.
Final Act. 11-12.
10. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gebhardt, Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Brody. Final
Act. 12.
8 US 4,086,781, issued May 2, 1978.
9 US 5,279,515, issued Jan. 18, 1994.
10 DE 24 01 517 Al, published July 24, 1975.
3
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 2--4). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and set
forth in the Answer (see Ans. 13-18). We highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Obviousness rejections based on Ross
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 as obvious over
Ross, Marietti or Jones, and Goransson as a group. App. Br. 5-7. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection fails to consider a
synchronous air blower according to claim 1 as a whole. App. Br. 5.
Appellants contend that "[ e ]ven if, arguendo, Ross may disclose a fan as
part of an environmental system, Ross fails to teach or disclose a permanent
magnet motor and a fan having a fan shaft with a second cogged sprocket."
Id. Appellants state that the applied combination of Marietti, Jones, and
Goransson fails to cure the deficiencies of Ross. Id. Appellants do not
challenge the Examiner's findings as to the teachings of the individual
references, but argue "the Examiner is merely combining allegedly
well-known components at the time of the invention without providing an
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness." Id. at 6.
4
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's
rejection, which includes citations to each of the references for teachings of
each of the limitations of the claims, and findings that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had reason to combine these teachings in the manner
claimed in claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds Ross teaches all
limitations of claim 1 except that Ross' s motor is not disclosed to be a
permanent magnet motor and Ross teaches a belt and pulley instead of a
synchronous belt with two cogged sprockets. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
finds one of skill in the art would have recognized a benefit of employing
Marietti or Jones's synchronous belt and cogged sprockets in Ross's system,
namely, "in order to ensure that the belt does not slip during operation."
Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Goransson teaches the interchangeability
of various motors one of ordinary skill in the art could utilize to drive a load,
and finds one of skill in the art would have recognized benefits from making
Ross's motor a permanent magnet motor, namely, "in order to utilize[] the
advantages of high torque density to weight ratio, reliability, low cost and
electrical stability." Final Act. 3. Appellants' argument that "permanent
magnet motors are not predictably or traditionally low in cost" (App. Br. 6),
does not address the remaining findings as to the desirability of modifying
Ross with the teachings of Marietti or Jones and Goransson. We agree with
the Examiner's findings and conclusion of obviousness of claim 1.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ross, Marietti or Jones, and
Goransson. Thus, we sustain this rejection of claim 1, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 10 and 19, which fall with representative claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
For the same reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejections based on
Ross (in combination with Marietti or Jones, and Goransson) of claims 2, 5,
11, 14, and 16-18, which Appellants argue are patentable for the same
reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Appellants do not provide arguments
related to the obviousness rejections of claims 3 and 12 (over Ross, Marietti
or Jones, Goransson, and Cole), claims 4, 7, 8, and 13 (over Ross, Marietti
or Jones, Goransson, and Davis), and claim 9 (over Ross, Marietti or Jones,
Goransson, and Brody). 11 Thus, for the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and
19, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
Obviousness rejections based on Moore
Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
rejected as obvious over Moore, Marietti or Jones, and Goransson (claims 1,
5, 6, 10, and 14--20). App. Br. 7-9. Appellants argue the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 based on Moore is in error for the same reasons as the
rejection of claim 1 based on Ross. See id. Similar to the rejection based on
Ross, the Examiner finds all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the
combination of Moore, Marietti or Jones, and Goransson, and finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Moore for the same reasons
discussed above as to Ross. Final Act. 6-7. For the reasons discussed above
relating to the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Ross, Marietti or Jones,
and Goransson, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14--20
11 We note, however, that Cole, Davis, and Brody are mentioned in a
paragraph relating to the rejections of claims 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 16-18.
App. Br. 7.
6
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moore, Marietti or Jones, and
Goransson.
For the same reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection based on
Moore (in combination with Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Davis) of
claims 4, 7, 8, and 13, which Appellants argue are patentable for the same
reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Appellants do not provide arguments
related to the obviousness rejection of claim 9 (over Moore, Marietti or
Jones, Goransson, and Brody). 12 Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Obviousness rejections based on Gebhardt
Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of the group of claims
rejected as obvious over Gebhardt, Marietti or Jones, and Goransson (claims
1, 5, 6, 10, and 14--20). App. Br. 9-11. Appellants argue the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 based on Gebhardt is in error for the same reasons as the
rejection of claim 1 based on Ross. See id. Similar to the rejection based on
Ross, the Examiner finds all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the
combination of Gebhardt, Marietti or Jones, and Goransson, and finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Gebhardt for the same reasons
discussed above as to Ross. Final Act. 9-10. For the reasons discussed
above relating to the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Ross, Marietti or
Jones, and Goransson, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and
14--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gebhardt, Marietti or
Jones, and Gorans son.
12 We note, however, that Brody is mentioned in a paragraph relating to the
rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, and 13. App. Br. 9.
7
Appeal2015-000167
Application 12/956,480
For the same reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejections based on
Gebhardt (in combination with Marietti or Jones, Goransson, and Davis) of
claims 4, 7, 8, and 13, and claim 9 (in combination with Marietti or Jones,
Goransson, and Brody), which Appellants argue are patentable for the same
reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8