Ex parte Savage et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2000

08577839 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JACK W. SAVAGE and JOHN R. SURIANO
____________
Appeal No. 1997-3089
Application No. 08/577,839
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 15, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention is directed to a flux damper for permanent
magnet type electric motors. A conductive ring is employed to
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 2
Application No. 08/577,839
damp changes in magnetic flux thereby damping noise and
vibration which the flux changes induce.
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 3
Application No. 08/577,839
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. In an electric motor, in which a rotating magnetic
flux causes vibration in another component, the improvement
comprising:

a) a conductive ring, near the component, in which
rotating flux induces a time-varying current.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Persson 3,663,851 May 16,
1972
King, Jr. (King) 3,793,546 Feb. 19,
1974
Simpson 3,929,390 Dec. 30,
1975
Allegre et al. (Allegre) 4,329,609 May
11, 1982
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Persson, King
and Allegre with regard to claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 12,
adding Simpson, in a new ground of rejection entered in the
answer, with regard to claims 7 and 13 through 15.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 4
Application No. 08/577,839
We have carefully reviewed, inter alia, the applied
references, as well as the arguments presented by appellants
and the examiner. As a result of such a review we will sustain
the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we will not
sustain the rejection of any other claim based on the
references and rationale applied by the examiner.
With regard to independent claim 1, although rather broad
in scope, the claim does require a conductive “ring” and it is
in that ring in which rotating flux “induces a time-varying
current.” The examiner applies Persson, which describes a DC
motor having many of the characteristics disclosed by the
instant application but, as the examiner admits, Persson does
not disclose “a conductive ring for damping (reducing) the
vibration which is caused by the changes of the rotating
magnetic flux” [answer-page 4]. The examiner then relies on
“end ring 21" of King and the teaching of Allegre, of
installing a damping winding which includes two conductor
rings, to conclude that it would have been obvious “to include
at least one or two conductive rings, as taught by King and
Allegre, in the Persson d.c. motor because this would reduce
the unwanted vibration in the motor” [answer-page 4].
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 5
Application No. 08/577,839
The “rings” of King and Allegre appear to be part of a
squirrel cage structure which structure, as a whole, acts to
reduce vibration. Thus, we agree with appellants that there
does not appear to be any reason to dissect these rings from
the rest of the squirrel cage structures and use only those
rings in Persson to achieve the claimed invention. There
clearly is no suggestion in any of these references to make
such a modification.
Moreover, appellants argue that even if such a combination
were to be made, the rings of King and Allegre have no time-
varying current induced in them by a rotating flux. Appellants
submit sketches and an explanation as to why the rings of King
and Allegre have no time-varying current induced in them by a
rotating flux [principal brief-pages 29-31] and such
explanation appears reasonable to us. The examiner’s response
[answer-page 9] is to state that it is a “well-known
characteristic of electromagnetic fields that when a rotating
magnetic flux penetrates a conductive device the flux induces a
time varying current in the device.” However, based on
appellants’ explanation, it does not appear that the flux lines
would pass through ring 21 in King, for example. But, again,
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 6
Application No. 08/577,839
as appellants assert, even if a magnetic field passed through
ring 21, there is no evidence that rotation of the ring would
induce a current in the ring. Clearly, King does not provide
such evidence and the examiner has provided no evidence of
such, especially important in the face of appellants’
reasonable argument that such current is not induced in the
ring.
More importantly, even if the King and Allegre teachings
were to be combined with Persson, we are at a loss as to how,
exactly, such a combination would be made. There is no
indication of how the squirrel cage structures of King and
Allegre would be incorporated into Persson. If, as the
examiner appears to indicate, only the end rings of these
structures would be incorporated, the question again is raised
as to why the artisan would have dissected the squirrel cage
structures of King and Allegre and used only the end rings
therefrom. Further, why would the artisan have been led to
modify Persson so as to include the rings and how would such
rings be installed in Persson? The examiner’s rejection
appears to rely on picking one type of motor from one
reference, a conductive ring from another reference and a
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 7
Application No. 08/577,839
teaching of damping vibration from yet another reference, i.e.,
choosing bits and pieces from various references, and then
haphazardly throwing together these pieces, using appellants’
disclosure as a blueprint, in order to arrive at the instant
claimed subject matter. For these reasons, we find the
examiner’s combination to be untenable even in view of the
great breadth of independent claim 1.
Similarly, with regard to independent claim 5, the claim
calls for a conductive loop through which flux passes and
generating a current in the loop when a first flux occurs so as
to generate a second flux which opposes the change in the first
flux. Again, we find no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references of these limitations.
Simpson was applied, in combination with Persson, King and
Allegre, with regard to dependent claims 7 and 13 through 15
but we find nothing in Simpson which would supply the
deficiencies noted supra regarding independent claims 1 and 5.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 through 10, 12,
13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We reach a different result with regard to independent
claim 3. In our view, this claim is so broad as to read on
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 8
Application No. 08/577,839
Allegre, alone. Allegre would appear to meet the limitations
of broad independent claim 3. Allegre discloses an electric
motor and a means for generating a magnetic flux. The means
for generating the flux clearly rotates and interacts with a
component, e.g., the ring of the stator magnetic circuit.
Vibration is induced in that component. See column 2, lines
22-33, which described vibrations of the ring. Finally,
Allegre discloses a “means for reducing said vibration”
[Allegre’s damping winding], as broadly as that term is recited
in claim 3. To the extent that we may have applied the Allegre
reference in a manner somewhat differently than did the
examiner, this does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961);
In re Halley, 296 F.2d 774, 778, 132 USPQ 16, 20 (CCPA 1961).
We are not prepared, however, to interpret dependent
claims 4, 11 and 14 so broadly as claim 3. Because we have no
teaching by Allegre or any evidence presented by the examiner
that the damping winding of Allegre operates by “utilizing
Lentz’s Law to reduce flux changes which reach said component”
[claim 4]; that the motor of Allegre may operate with a DC
current causing the rotor to rotate [claim 11]; or that the
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 9
Application No. 08/577,839
rotor carries the means which generates the magnetic flux and
rotates with respect to said conductive ring [claim 14], we
will not sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2
and 4 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the
examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 10
Application No. 08/577,839
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/jlb
Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 11
Application No. 08/577,839
JACOX MECKSTROTH AND JENKINS
2310 FAR HILLS BUILDING
DAYTON, OH 45419-1575