Ex Parte Schock et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201814295057 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/295,057 06/03/2014 13929 7590 09/05/2018 Hovey Williams LLP 10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000 Overland Park, KS 66210 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher D. Schock 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. 46462 3086 EXAMINER BOUZIANE, SAID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): patdocketing.nidec@hoveywilliams.com cdw@hoveywilliams.com uspatents@hoveywilliams.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER D. SCHOCK, PRAKASH B. SHARI, HECTOR M. HERNANDEZ, and BRET S. CLARK1 Appeal 2018-001812 Application 14/295,057 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nidec Motor Corporation. Br. 4. Appeal 2018-001812 Application 14/295,057 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below ( emphasis added): 1. A system comprising: an electric motor having a rotor; a controller in communication with the electric motor and operable to control operation of the electric motor; and a braking system operable to reduce a rotation of the rotor, wherein - the controller first attempts to start the electric motor without applying the braking system to the rotor, if the electric motor fails to start, the controller causes the braking system to apply and then release an initial strength of braking and then again attempts to start the electric motor, and if the motor still fails to start, the controller iteratively causes the braking system to increase the strength of braking and attempts to start the electric motor until a predetermined maximum strength of braking is reached. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Dooley US 2007/0296215 Al (hereinafter Dooley '215) Dooley US 2010/0019707 Al (hereinafter Dooley '707) 2 Dec. 27, 2007 Jan.28,2010 Appeal 2018-001812 Application 14/295,057 THE REJECTION 1. Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley '707 in view of Dooley '215. ANALYSIS To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments for the separate patentability of any individual claim on appeal, we will address each separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and affirm, and add the following for emphasis. The Examiner's position for this rejection is set forth on pages 4--8 of the Final Office Action, which we incorporate herein. The Examiner relies upon Dooley '707 for teaching certain aspects of the claims, and relies upon Dooley '215 for teaching a technique of strengthening the braking system by increasing the strength between start attempts. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Dooley '215 teaches a rotor stopping apparatus and states that ,r [0026] of Dooley '215 teaches that the nature and strength of the DC current applied is dependent on the rotor and winding configuration. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that the combination of Dooley '707 and Dooley '215 does not result in attempting to brake the rotor with automatically increasing strength with each attempt to start the motor for the 3 Appeal 2018-001812 Application 14/295,057 reasons set forth on pages 12-14 of the Appeal Brief. Appellants argue that Dooley '215 teaches away by disclosing that "the trial-and-error approach of the prior art is thus unnecessary" (Dooley '215, ,r [0033]). Appeal Br. 14. In response, the Examiner explains that the idea of adjusting braking strength is within the knowledge generally available to one skilled in the art for the reasons provided on page 5-6 of the Answer. The point being made by the Examiner is that the manner of adjusting braking strength is within the purview of the skilled artisan as warranted by system conditions. We agree. Notably, and importantly, no Reply Brief is of record to address this specific Examiner's response made in the Answer. With regard to the argument that Dooley '215 teaches away, we are unpersuaded because, again, the point being made by the Examiner is that the manner of adjusting braking strength (whether it be a trial and error approach or a measured approach) is within the purview of the skilled artisan based upon system conditions, and Appellants have not persuaded us otherwise in the record before us. We thus are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection, and affirm the rejection. DECISION The rejection is 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). 4 Appeal 2018-001812 Application 14/295,057 ORDER AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation