Ex Parte Knapp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

12907519 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/907,519 10/19/2010
90082 7590 04/25/2016
Law Offices of Mark L. Berrier
1715 S.Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 200-E
Austin, TX 78746
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John M. Knapp
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.
BAKR01500 2145
EXAMINER
LEE, PETET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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 JOHN M. KNAPP
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907 ,519
Technology Center 2800
Before JESSICA C. KAISER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-22, all of the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Baker Hughes
Incorporated. (App. Br. 4.)
2 Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. (App. Br. 31.)
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Claims 1, 12, and 15, the pending independent claims, are illustrative
of the invention, and are reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for insulating a Y-point in a three-phase
electric motor, the apparatus comprising:
an electrically insulating enclosure, wherein the enclosure
forms a cavity configured to accommodate a Y-point junction of
a three-phase motor;
one or more apertures through the enclosure, wherein the
apertures are configured to enable three conductors which are
connected at the Y-point junction to extend from the cavity to an
exterior of the enclosure; and
one or more insulating seals, wherein each of the seals is
formed at a corresponding one of the apertures, and wherein each
of the seals provides an electrically insulating barrier between the
Y-point junction and the exterior of the enclosure.
12. An electric submersible pump system for downhole
applications; the system comprising:
a pump; and
a motor coupled to the pump and configured to drive the
pump,
wherein the motor is Y-wound and utilizes three-phase
power,
wherein the motor includes an electrically insulating
enclosure which forms a cavity that accommodates a Y-point
junction of the motor,
wherein the enclosure has one or more apertures
therethrough which enable three conductors which are connected
at the Y-point junction to extend from the cavity to an exterior of
the enclosure, and
2
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
wherein the enclosure has one or more insulating seals at
the apertures which provide an electrically insulating barrier
between the Y-point junction and the exterior of the enclosure.
15. A method for insulating a Y-point within a three-phase
induction motor, the method comprising:
providing an electrically insulating enclosure, wherein the
enclosure forms a cavity configured to accommodate a Y-point
junction of a three-phase motor and has one or more apertures
that extend from a cavity within the enclosure to an exterior of
the enclosure;
positioning three conductors through the apertures,
wherein the three conductors extend from coils of the motor to a
Y-point junction; and
enclosing the Y-point junction within the enclosure,
wherein the apertures of the enclosure are sealed and the
enclosure forms an electrically insulating barrier between the
cavity within the enclosure and the exterior of the enclosure.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 8-11, 15-18, and 21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff (US 2,662,735; issued
Dec. 15, 1953), Bunch (US 6,273,754 Bl; issued Aug. 14, 2001), and
Hunter (US 3,825,148; issued July 23, 1974). (Final Act. 4---6, 11-13.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and Link
(US 4,196,408; issued Apr. 1, 1980). (Final Act. 6-9.)
The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, Link, and Herrmann, Jr. (US
3,852,512; issued Dec. 3, 1974). (Final Act. 7-8.)
3
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
The Examiner has rejected claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and Pearson (US
6,176,308 Bl; issued Jan. 23, 2001). (Final Act. 9-11.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and
Vandevier (US 4,211,625; issued July 8, 1980). (Final Act. 14--15.)
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellant's arguments is:
Did the Examiner err in finding Arutunoff teaches or suggests a "Y-
point junction," as recited in claims 1, 12, and 15?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Arutunoff does not teach "a Y-point junction of a
three-phase motor within [an] enclosure." (App. Br. 13.) We agree with
Appellant.
As Appellant argues (id.), the Specification describes that three-phase
electric motors can use a "Y" configuration; in such a configuration, "power
is applied to one end of each coil (each coil receiving a different phase of the
three-phase power), and the second end of each coil is tied to the others at a
junction that is referred to as the Y-point." (Spec. i-f 5.) Figure 4 of
Appellant's Specification is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
400 Fig. 4
Figure 4 depicts a Y-point junction within an enclosure. According to
the Specification, "[ c ]onductors 430-432 are connected to the three coils of a
three-phase induction motor," and "[t]he end portions of each of conductors
430-432 are joined and secured to each other by a metal band [ 415] that is
crimped over the end portions of the conductors. This junction of
conductors 430-432 forms the Y-point of the motor." (Spec. i-f 38.)
Consistent with the Specification, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 6) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a "Y-
point junction" in the context of the claims is a point where the conductors
5
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
are electrically connected. We further agree that this understanding is
supported by the references cited in Appellant's Evidence Appendix (see
App. Br. 13).
Under that construction, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
errs in finding Arutunoffteaches a Y-pointjunction. A portion of Figure 2A
of Arutunoff with annotations by the Examiner is reproduced below.
Annotated Figure 2A shows the Examiner finds the Y-point junction of
Arutunoff is the point where conductors 120, 121, and 122 come together.
(Ans. 2.) The Examiner finds that this structure is the same as Appellant's
Figure 4 with conductors 430, 431, and 432 joined at connection point 415.
(Id.)
We disagree. As discussed above, Appellant's Specification describes
that the three conductors 430-432 are connected to the three coils of a three-
phase induction motor and the ends of those conductors terminate in the Y-
point connected by a metal band. (Spec. i-f 38.) That structure is not the
same as Figure 2A of Arutunoff. As Appellant points out, the components
6
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
of Figure 2A of Arutunoff sit above the motor 15 in Figure 1. (Reply Br. 5.)
Arutunoff teaches:
[C]onductors 120, 121 and 122 extend from the cable 125, which
extends through the passage in the tubular member 104 and leads
to the motor 15. The motor 15 is a three phase motor and the
electrical energy is thus supplied to said motor from the cable 36
in the supporting cable 1 7 through the cable 3 7 and the
cooperating contacts to the cable 125 having the conductors that
are connected with said motor.
(Arutunoff 8:35--44.) In other words, we agree with Appellant that a person
of ordinary skill would understand that conductors 120, 121, and 122 are not
electrically connected to each other at the point the Examiner indicates
because if they were, the conductors could not carry three-phase power to
motor 15. (See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7.)
We determine the Examiner erred in finding Arutunoff teaches the Y-
point junction recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 15. Regarding claim
12, we observe the Examiner found that Pearson teaches a motor that is Y-
wound, but the Examiner continued to rely on the finding that Arutunoff
teaches a Y-point junction in reaching an obviousness conclusion. (See
Final Act. 9--10.) We determine the Examiner's citation of Pearson in the
rejection of independent claim 12 as well as the additional references cited
in the rejections of certain dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the
Examiner's findings discussed supra.
For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-22.
7
Appeal2015-000026
Application 12/907,519
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
8