Ex Parte Kataoka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201712864423 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation