Ex Parte Kataoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

12864423 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
12/864,423 07/23/2010 Yoshihiro Kataoka DK-US105180 4382
22919 7590 09/29/2017
GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
David Tarnoff
1233 20TH STREET, NW
Suite 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680
EXAMINER
HERRMANN, JOSEPH S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
mailpto @ giplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIHIRO KATAOKA, YASUKAZU NABETANI,
KAZUO IDA, and AZUSA UJIHARA
Appeal 2016-000714
Application 12/864,423
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7, 18—20, and 22—25. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 “[T]he real party in interest is Daikin industries, Ltd.” (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2016-000714
Application 12/864,423
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to a compressor.” (Spec. 11.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A compressor comprising:
a hermetic container;
a compression mechanism section disposed in the
hermetic container; and
a motor disposed in the hermetic container, the motor
being configured and arranged to drive the compression
mechanism section,
the motor having a rotor, and a stator disposed so as to
surround an outer periphery of the rotor,
the stator including
a stator core having a hollow circular cylindrical
section that has a radially inner peripheral surface
and a radially outer peripheral surface, and a
plurality of circumferentially arranged teeth
protruding radially inward from the radially inner
peripheral surface of the hollow circular
cylindrical section, and
oil passage grooves located radially outside of the
teeth, the oil passage grooves being formed by
cutting the radially outer peripheral surface of the
hollow circular cylindrical section,
the oil passage grooves reaching radial positions,
located radially outside of the teeth, corresponding
to the radially inner peripheral surface of the
hollow circular cylindrical section.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—6, 18, 19, and 22—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Higuchi2 and Kimura.3 (Final Action 3.)
2 JP 2007-285266 published November 1, 2007.
3 US 7,164,218 B2 issued January 16, 2007.
2
Appeal 2016-000714
Application 12/864,423
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Higuchi and Kimura and “further in view of legal
precedent.” (Final Action 16.)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Higuchi and Kimura and “further in view of legal
precedent.” (Final Action 18.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2—7, 18, 20, and 22—25) depending
therefrom. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite “a stator core having a hollow
circular cylindrical section,” “a plurality of circumferentially arranged teeth
protruding radially inward,” and “oil passage grooves located radially
outside of the teeth.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Higuchi teaches a stator core 510 with circumferentially arranged teeth 512
and oil return passages 530. (See Final Action 3.) According to the
Examiner, Higuchi passages 530 have an “approximately rectang[ular]
shape.” (Id. at 6.)
Independent claims 1 and 19 further recite that the oil passage grooves
“reach[] radial positions, located radially outside of the teeth, corresponding
to the radially inner peripheral surface of the hollow circular cylindrical
section.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Kimura
discloses a stator core having passages (voids 32) located radially outside
teeth 16b and arranged concentrically with a radially inner peripheral surface
from which teeth 16b extend. (See Final Action 4, 26.) And the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Higuchi’s stator core
3
Appeal 2016-000714
Application 12/864,423
so that its passages 530 are shaped and arranged in the same manner as
Kimura’s passages 32. (Final Action 6.)
The Appellants argue that Kimura does not show or suggest grooves
“corresponding” to the radially inner peripheral surface of the stator’s
cylindrical section. (See Appeal Br. 10—13.) The Appellants’arguments
appear to be premised on independent claims 1 and 19 requiring the oil
passage grooves to reach radial positions intersecting or overlapping the
radially inner peripheral surface. (See id.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because we agree with the Examiner that independent claims 1
and 19 only require the grooves’ radial positions to “correspond” to the
recited radially inner peripheral surface. (See Answer 25.) And we agree
with the Examiner that Kimura’s grooves 32 do reach radial positions
“corresponding in a concentric manner” to a radially inner peripheral surface
of a stator core. (Id.; see also Kimura, Fig. 2.)
The Appellants also argue that the reasoning provided by the
Examiner “is insufficient to support a rejection of obviousness.” (Appeal
Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it is also premised
on independent claims 1 and 19 requiring the oil passage grooves to reach
radial positions intersecting or overlapping the recited radially inner
peripheral surface. We note that the Appellants acknowledge that Kimura
“may suggest incorporating [its] passages” in Higuchi’s stator core “to
achieve the alleged advantages” taught by Kimura. (Id.) And when this
incorporation is made, Higuchi’s oil return passages 530 will correspond in a
concentric manner to the radially inner peripheral surface of its stator core.
Accordingly, the Appellants do not establish that the Examiner errs in
determining that the compressors recited in independent claims 1 and 19
4
Appeal 2016-000714
Application 12/864,423
would have been obvious over Higuchi and Kimura; and the dependent
claims are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 14—15). Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7, 18—20, and 22—25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5