Ex Parte Jocher

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10348899 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD WILLIAM JOCHER
____________

Appeal 2007-4374
Application 10/348,899
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KARL EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jocher (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2 through 7 and 16 through 18, which
are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant's invention relates to a switchable circulator. See generally
Spec. paragraphs [0014]-[0016]. Claim 4 is illustrative of the claimed
invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal 2007-4374
Application 10/348,899

4. A circulator comprising:

a conductive launching disk;

at least two ferrite disks sandwiched about said launching disk; and

at least two electromagnets, at least one electromagnet comprising an
electromagnetic coil, said electromagnets sandwiched about said ferrite disks

a controller to selectively do the following,

control current flow through said electromagnets so as to induce
a first magnetic field through said launching disk resulting in a first
direction of rotation or a second magnetic field, substantially opposite
to said first field, through said launching disk resulting in a second
direction of rotation opposite to said first direction, and

substantially prevent current flow through said electromagnets
so as to substantially prevent rotation through said launching disk.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Poirier US 3,733,563 May 15, 1973
Shen US 6,639,493 B2 Oct. 28, 2003
(filed Mar. 29, 2002)
Appellant's Admitted Prior Art at Figure 1A and paragraphs [0001]-[0008]
of the Specification. (AAPA)

Claims 2 through 7 and 16 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Poirier and Shen.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 11, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed May 30, 2006) for the respective arguments.

2
Appeal 2007-4374
Application 10/348,899

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 7 and 16 through 18.

OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 6-7) that there is no recognition in Poirier
"of the possibility of substantially preventing current flow in the
circumstance of using an electromagnet, much less of the desirable
consequence of substantially preventing rotation through the launching
disk." The Examiner asserts (Ans. 4) that the current flow through the
magnets would inherently include a zero position between opposite
polarities being switched which would necessarily result in no current or
rotation. The sole issue in this case is whether it would have been obvious
for the controller to substantially prevent current flow through the
electromagnets so as to substantially prevent rotation through said launching
disk.
The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of
combining elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may
consider "the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art" and "the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). In the present case, Poirier discloses (col. 3, ll.
1-4) that using an electromagnet in a circulator allows for switching the
direction of the applied current. Appellant discloses (Spec. paragraph
[0003] and [0004]) that the electrons of ferrite material are known to wobble
under the influence of a magnetic field resulting in rotation of an input
3
Appeal 2007-4374
Application 10/348,899

signal. It would have been readily apparent to the skilled artisan that in the
absence of a magnetic field, the ferrite electrons would not wobble, and no
rotation would result. Therefore, turning off the electromagnets would result
in no rotation occurring in the ferrite material and, therefore, provide an
additional state for the circulator. Further, the controller suggested by
Poirier would certainly be capable of preventing current through the
electromagnets. Therefore, claims 2 through 7 and 16 through 18 would
have been obvious over AAPA, Poirier, and Shen.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2 through 7 and 16
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tdl

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 8910
Reston, VA 20195
4