Ex Parte MAASE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2019

14514593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/514,593 10/15/2014
24131 7590 06/20/2019
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
PO BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JENSMAASE
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.
2013P03127 5608
EXAMINER
TALPALATSKI, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2019 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS MAASE
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Continental Automotive GmbH is the Applicant/ Appellant and is also
identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
The invention is generally directed to a method for actuating an
electromagnetic actuator device having a plunger movably disposed in a
magnetic field of a coil. Br. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for actuating an electromagnetic
actuator device having a coil with a magnetic field, the method
comprising the following steps:
providing a non-permanent-magnetic plunger to be
activated from a position of rest to an activated position, the
non-permanent-magnetic plunger having at least one section
being movably disposed in the magnetic field of the coil;
activating the non-permanent-magnetic plunger by
applying a voltage to the coil;
after activating the non-permanent-magnetic plunger,
reducing the voltage to end the activation and move the non-
permanent-magnetic plunger towards its position of rest;
after an end of the electrical activation of the non-
permanent-magnetic plunger, while the non-permanent-
magnetic plunger is moving towards its position of rest,
applying a magnetization voltage, not being sufficient for an
activation, to the coil for a predefined time period to induce a
voltage in the coil by the movement of the non-permanent-
magnetic plunger; and
detecting the voltage induced in the coil by the
movement of the non-permanent magnetic plunger.
Appellant (see generally Br.) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over LaMarca (US 2002/0175791 Al, published November 28, 2002),
Tomatsu (US 5,551,480, issued September 3, 1996), and Applicant's
Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A") (Figures 1 and 2, and background section of
the specification provided by the applicant).
2
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
II. Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over LaMarca, Tomatsu, AAP A, and Zhou (US 6,377,143 B 1, issued April
23, 2002).
The Appellant focuses the arguments on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3-5).
Therefore, we confine our discussion to this claim, which we designate as
representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided in this
rule, claims 2--4stand or fall with claim 1.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions that Appellant provides in the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer,
we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1--4 for the
reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's specific findings with
respect to LaMarca as teaching a method for actuating an electromagnetic
actuator device having a coil with a magnetic field, including the finding that
LaMarca inherently provides a non-permanent magnetic plunger. Final Act.
3; see generally Br. The Examiner finds that LaMarca does not teach
( 1) applying a magnetization voltage while the plunger is moving towards its
position of rest or (2) detecting an induced voltage in the coil through
movement of the plunger as claimed. Final Act. 4. Regarding difference
( 1 ), the Examiner finds that Tomatsu teaches applying a magnetization
voltage to control the movement of the plunger toward its rest position,
resulting in a reduction of the device's operational noise. Final Act. 4; see
Tomatsu col. 1, 11. 45-58; col. 5, 11. 9-30, Figure 5. Regarding difference
3
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
(2), the Examiner finds that AAP A teaches it was known to measure induced
voltage using the current when a plunger moves towards its rest position.
Final Act. 4 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 5---6). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify LaMarca's method for
actuating an electromagnetic actuator device by incorporating the teachings
of Tomatsu and AAPA to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Final Act. 4
( explaining that the skilled artisan would have made the modifications "in
order to accurately determine the position of the plunger").
Appellant asserts that one skilled in the art would not have combined
LaMarca, Tomatsu, and the AAP A as the Examiner proposes because the
references do not teach or suggest detecting a voltage induced in a coil
through movement of a non-permanent-magnetic plunger toward its rest
position by applying a magnetization voltage to the coil after an end of the
electrical activation. Br. 6-7. Appellant particularly argues that the claimed
invention uses a non-permanent magnetic plunger and, thus, the AAP A
disclosure regarding the determination and detection of a voltage in the coil
induced by a permanent magnetic plunger is not applicable to the claimed
invention. Id. at 3-5. Appellant further contends that, absent impermissible
hindsight, it would not have been obvious to detect a voltage induced in a
coil as a non-permanent magnetic plunger moves through the coil because a
non-magnetic plunger does not induce any voltage during its movement
within the coil. Id. at 6.
Appellant's arguments do not point to error in the Examiner's
determination of obviousness. It is well settled that nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co.,
4
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425--426
( CCP A 19 81) ("The test [ for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Appellant's arguments are unavailing because they do not address the
rejection the Examiner presents. As the Examiner finds, the AAPA
discloses that it was known to determine the voltage in a coil induced
through the movement of a magnetized plunger and detecting the current
flowing through the coil to ensure that the magnetized plunger has returned
to its position of rest. Final Act. 4; see Spec. ,r 5. Further, as the Examiner
explains in the Answer, when a non-permanent magnetic plunger is
magnetized to have induced poles, it behaves like a permanent magnet in the
same way as the claimed plunger and, consequently, a magnetized non-
permanent magnetic plunger will induce a voltage just like a permanent
magnetic plunger when moving. Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains
that, upon magnetization, there is no difference between a permanent
magnetic plunger and a magnetized non-permanent magnetic plunger (with
induced poles) from the point of view of the detector. Id. Although
Appellant argues that a non-permanent magnetic plunger does not induce
any voltage during its movement within the coil (Br. 6), Appellant does not
challenge adequately the Examiner's conclusion discussed above in the
Appeal Brief. Nor has Appellant filed a Reply Brief to address this
conclusion. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding
that Tomatsu teaches applying a magnetization voltage to control the
movement of a plunger toward its rest position. Final Act. 4; Tomatsu
Figure 5; see id. col. 1. 11. 45--47; col. 5, 11. 9-30. Thus, Appellant fails to
explain adequately why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
5
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
applying the AAP A's technique of ensuring that the magnetized plunger
returns to its rest position to the actuating method from the combined
teachings ofLaMarca and Tomatsu and reasonably expect the AAPA's
technique to perform the same for the combined teachings of LaMarca and
Tomatsu. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.").
Appellant further argues that Tomatsu discloses applying a braking
voltage to a valve that is spring-biased to close to reduce the force with
which the spring moves the plunger to the closed position and to produce a
smaller operational noise at de-energizing. Br. 8. Appellant contends that
there is no need for Tomatsu to detect a voltage induced in the coil through
movement of the plunger to determine if the valve has closed, because
Tomatsu's return spring ( 48) unquestionably moves the valve (32a) into the
rest position when the voltage is cut off. Id. at 8-9.
These arguments also fail to persuade us of Examiner error for the
reasons the Examiner provides. Ans. 6. Appellant's arguments, again, do
not address the rejection the Examiner presents. Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097.
Moreover, the premise of Appellant's argument is that, unlike the claimed
subject matter, Tomatsu teaches a spring to unquestionably return the
plunger to its rest position. However, the language of claim 1 is drafted
using the open transitional language "comprising" to describe the steps to
perform the method. Therefore, the claimed method, as drafted, does not
exclude the use of a spring to ensure the return of the non-permanent
magnetic plunger to its rest position.
6
Appeal2018-006456
Application 14/514,593
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and the
reasons we give above.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
7