Ex Parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2008

11053071 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HYEONG-WOOK PARK
____________

Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: June 30, 2008
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and KEVIN F.
TURNER Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Examiner noted in the Answer (Ans. 12) that claims 3, 4, and 16-19
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a system and method for controlling
rotational direction. The system includes an electrical power connection and
a control circuit (Spec.2: 23-33). The control circuit controls a rotation unit
through an electrical power connection to rotate the control circuit in a
desired direction responsive to a sensed rotation direction of the rotation unit
(Cl. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A rotation control system for a rotation unit of an apparatus for
manufacturing semiconductor devices, the system comprising:

an electrical power connection to the rotation unit; and

a control circuit configured to control the electrical power connection
to the rotation unit to rotate the rotation unit in a desired direction
responsive to a sensed rotational direction of the rotation unit.

REFERENCES
Carrigan US 4,758,769 Jul. 19, 1988
Capewell US 6,580,234 B2 Jun. 17, 2003
Aso US 6,606,536 B1 Aug. 12, 2003
Prior Art Fig. 1

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 20 under U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 based upon the teachings of Aso and
Carrigan;
2
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 based upon the teachings of Prior Art
Fig. 1 in Appellant’s application and Carrigan; and
3. Claims 6 and 13-15 based upon the teachings of Aso, Prior Art Fig.
1, Carrigan, and Capewell.
Appellant contends that none of the cited references when combined
teach or suggest the control circuit of Appellant’s claimed invention (Br. 5;
Reply Br. 2).2

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Aso and Carrigan?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Prior Art Fig. 1 of
Appellant’s application and Carrigan?
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 13-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Aso, Prior Art Fig. 1 of
Appellant’s application, Carrigan, and Capewell?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s claimed invention is to a rotation control system
that includes a control circuit configured to control the electrical power
connection to a rotation unit so that the rotation unit rotates in a desired

2 Appellant states that because independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected
based on alternative rejections of Carrigan with the other cited prior art, the
arguments for each of the rejections is substantially identical. Therefore,
“the rejections of the independent claims will be addressed as a single
rejection.” (App. Br. 4-5)
3
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

direction responsive to a sensed rotational direction of the rotation unit (Cl.
1).
2. Aso teaches a control device that detects the radial position of a
rotor shaft (col. 5, ll. 34-39) to maintain the rotor shaft at a predetermined
position (col. 5, ll. 63-67).
The control device 40 performs feedback control of the exciting
current of the radial electromagnets 21 and 24 and the axial
electromagnets 32 and 34 on the basis of the detection signal as of the
radial sensors 22 and 26 and the axial sensor 36 to thereby
magnetically float the rotor shaft 18.

(Col. 6, ll. 16-21)

3. Aso also teaches determining whether the contents of EEP-
ROM devices are identical and if so, a controlling unit turns a magnetic
bearing body in accordance with the content of the renewed EEP-ROM (col.
7, ll. 18-55).
4. Carrigan teaches an apparatus for sensing the direction of
rotation of a device by providing a first voltage signal having a polarity
dependent on the polarity and direction of rotation of an adjacent magnetic
pole and providing a second voltage signal. The voltage signals are
compared to determine the direction of rotation of a shaft (col. 1, ll. 9-44).
Sensors provide an output signal indicative of the rotational position of the
rotor (col. 4, ll. 19-22).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
4
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears
the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”…
[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1734.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20
The Examiner states that Prior Art Fig. 1 shows all the elements of the
claimed invention except for the sensed rotational direction of the rotor unit
(Ans. 3). The Examiner cited Aso as providing radial sensors and
5
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

displacement sensors for detecting a radial displacement of the rotary shaft
and Carrigan for providing an apparatus for sensing the direction of rotation
using a rotational direction sensor (Ans. 3-4).
Appellant argues that none of the references teach a control circuit
“configured to control the electrical power connection to the rotation unit to
rotate the rotation unit in a desired direction responsive to a sensed rotational
direction of the rotation unit” (App. Br. 5; cl. 1). Appellant further points
out that the Examiner acknowledges that neither Aso nor Prior Art Fig. 1
teaches this feature of the claimed invention and Carrigan is cited only for
teaching a rotation direction sensing apparatus (App. Br. 5).
We agree that Prior Art Fig. 1 teaches all the elements of
representative claim 1 except for the control circuit configured to control the
electrical power connection to the rotation unit. We also agree that neither
Aso nor Prior Art Fig. 1 teaches this feature. Carrigan, however, provides
that it was known in the art to provide an apparatus for determining the
direction of rotation of a shaft by providing digital codes that indicate
rotational direction (col. 1, ll. 9-27). Carrigan also teaches a first detector
providing a first voltage signal having a polarity dependent on the polarity
and direction of rotation of an adjacent magnetic pole and a second detector
providing a second voltage signal (col. 1, ll. 28-44) such that the level of the
output signals from the sensors indicates the direction the rotor is rotated: in
a clockwise direction or a counter clockwise direction (col. 3 ll. 50-62; col.
4, ll. 19-22).
The electrical connection in Appellant’s claims would have been
known to one skilled in the art as evidenced by the detectors and sensors of
6
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

Carrigan that output magnetic signals that are converted to voltage levels
(electrical signals). That is, Carrigan teaches:
a low level signal at the terminal 29 indicates clockwise rotation of
the rotor 10 and this signal also applies the d.c. level at 33 to the
terminal 34. A high level signal at terminal 29 is converted to a low
level by the inverter 31 and causes the inverted level at 33 to be
applied to the terminal 34. The signal at the terminal 34 thus
provides, by its magnitude and polarity, an indication of the speed and
direction of rotation of the rotor 10.

(Col. 3, ll. 50-58).

It would thus be obvious to take the output signals from the sensors of
Carrigan and input them to a control unit that provides a sensed rotational
direction of the rotation unit to rotate the rotation unit in a desired direction
based on the signal. Appellant is merely taking what is already known in the
art—visually inspecting a rotation unit and changing direction by hand—and
employing known sensors to detect rotation direction and a control unit to
rotate the rotation unit in a desired direction.
Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 over either Also and Carrigan or the teachings of Prior Art
Fig. 1 in Appellant’s application and Carrigan . Since claims 2, 5, 7-12, and
20 depend therefrom, and no additional arguments were provided by
Appellant, claims 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 are grouped with claim 1. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 20 under
U.S.C. § 103(a).

7
Appeal 2007-4363
Application 11/053,071

Claims 6 and 13-15
Appellant provided no arguments with respect to claims 6 and 13-15.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above with respect to representative claim 1,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13-15.

CONCLUSION
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw

Robert W. Glatz
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P. O. BOX 37428
Raleigh, NC 27627
8