Ex Parte Schock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14295057 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

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