Ex Parte Nelges

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2017

14071374 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
14/071,374 11/04/2013 Jorg NELGES 65040-255900 4435
141164 7590 09/18/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (ABB)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
FIGG, TRAVIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2017 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):
INDocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG NELGES
Appeal 2016-006701
Application 14/071,374
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JULIA HEANEY, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 7 of Application 14/071,374.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Nov. 4, 2013, (“Spec.”),
Final Action dated July 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief dated Dec. 3,
2015 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 22, 2016 (“Ans.”), and
Reply Brief dated June 22, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, ABB AG, which according to the Appeal Brief
is also the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006701
Application 14/071,374
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a flexible insulation laminate
having at least one flat side of a base laminate layer coated with a layer of
insulating varnish. App. Br. 2. The insulation laminate can be used as a
liner in the winding slot of a motor, and has an added lubricant in its outer
varnish layer, in order to reduce friction between the slot and winding
conductors that are pulled through the slot during production of a motor.
Spec. H4—7. As recited in claim 1, the sole independent claim, the added
lubricant is an amide wax dispersion. Claim 1 is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix:
1. A flexible insulation laminate having a base laminate
layer, with at least one flat side coated with a layer of an
insulating varnish, the insulating varnish comprising:
a basecoat; and
an added lubricant;
wherein the basecoat is a polyester-imide or epoxy
varnish,
the addition is an amide wax dispersion in a
proportion by weight of 2% to 25%,
an average thickness of the base laminate lies in a
range from 80 pm to 1000 pm,
the insulating varnish is cured, and
an average thickness of the insulating varnish layer
lies in a range from 2 pm to 15 pm.
2
Appeal 2016-006701
Application 14/071,374
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miyaji,3 Namiki,4 and
Cancilleri.5 Ans. 11.
2. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miyaji, Namiki, and Ito.6
Ans. 111.
3. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishioka,7 Chisholm,8 Namiki,
Cancilleri, and Miyaji. Ans. 121.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues only claim 1. App. Br. 2—5. Claim 7, therefore,
stands or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Appellant
argues that each of the rejections should be reversed because a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the
references. App. Br. 4—5. Having considered Appellant’s arguments in light
of this appeal record, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm each of the rejections for the
3 Miyaji et al., US 2009/0258207 Al, pub. Oct. 15, 2009 (“Miyaji”).
4 Namiki et al., JP 2010-135135 A, pub. June 17, 2010 (“Namiki”).
5 Cancilleri et al., DE 10 2005 050 428 Al, pub. Apr. 26, 2007
(“Cancilleri”).
6 Ito, JP 2010-251134 A, pub. Nov. 4, 2010.
7 Ishioka, JP 05291059 A, pub. Nov. 5, 1993.
8 Chisholm, US 3,301,932, iss. Jan. 31, 1967.
3
Appeal 2016-006701
Application 14/071,374
reasons set forth in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer, which we
adopt as our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
In Rejections 1 and 2, the Examiner relies on Miyaji as teaching a
flexible insulation laminate having a base laminate layer with thickness
overlapping the range recited in claim 1. Ans. 14 (citing Miyaji 17, 26—
29, 41). The Examiner further finds that Miyaji teaches adding additional
layers and the addition of lubricants to those layers. Ans. 1 5 (citing Miyaji
117). The Examiner relies on Namiki, Cancilleri, and Ito as teaching the
insulation varnish features recited in claim 1. Ans. 6, 9, 19. The
Examiner further finds that all of the references are in the field of electrical
insulating laminates. Ans. Tflf 43, 45.
Appellant essentially does not dispute the Examiner’s findings, except
that Appellant refers to Miyaji as a “rigid” laminated board, and argues that
none of Namiki, Cancilleri, and Ito relate to a laminated board. App. Br. 4—
5. These arguments are conclusory and not persuasive. The Examiner’s
finding that Miyaji is a flexible laminate is well supported. Ans. 141. The
Examiner relies on Namiki, Cancilleri, and Ito as teaching the claimed
varnish features, not a laminated board. Further, Appellant provides no
explanation for the contention that a person of ordinary skill would not have
been motivated to combine the references, whereas the rejection provides
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. Ans. ffl, 10, 20. Accordingly, we sustain
Rejections 1 and 2.
In Rejection 3, the Examiner relies on Ishioka as teaching an
insulation laminate comprising a pressboard core and having epoxy or
polyester coatings on each side. Ans. 123. The Examiner finds Chisholm is
4
Appeal 2016-006701
Application 14/071,374
also in the field of pressboard laminates for electrical insulation and teaches
coating with PET to improve barrier properties, and that Miyaji teaches the
thickness of the base laminate layer as recited in claim 1. Ans. Tflf 25, 26, 35,
36, 46. The Examiner further finds that Ishioka is open to combination with
Namiki and Cancilleri, which teach the specific composition and amounts of
additives in the insulation varnish recited in claim 1. Ans. 147. The
Examiner finds that all of the references are in the field of insulative
laminates. Id.
Appellant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have
been motivated to combine the references, as with Rejections 1 and 2, is a
conclusory assertion without explanation or support in the record.
Moreover, Appellant’s argument that the Examiner “does not meaningfully
dispute . . . that a person of ordinary skill would not have applied teachings
from prior art describing wires (such as Namiki, Cancilleri, and Ito) to prior
art describing laminate boards (such as Miyaji and Ishioka)” (Reply Br. 2—3)
mischaracterizes the Answer. The Examiner’s finding that all of the
references are in the field of insulative laminates (Ans. 147) is well
supported and the rationale for combining the references is well articulated
and reasonable. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection 3.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1 and 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5