Ex Parte Scholz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2017

13158604 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
13/158,604 06/13/2011 Eckard Scholz MLO4-50953-US 9780
(INT0414US)
44639 7590 11/20/2017
CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
PHAM, LEDA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ECKARD SCHOLZ
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a magnetic coupling including an axis of rotation.
App. Br. 6—7. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
1 Appellant identifies Baker Hughes Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed December 7, 2015 (“App. Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A magnetic coupling including an axis of rotation, the
magnetic coupling comprising:
an inner mover including an inner magnet region
including a plurality of magnets disposed in a circular
arrangement around the axis of rotation;
an outer mover surrounding and separated from the inner
magnet region and that rotates about the axis of rotation and
relative to the inner mover, the outer mover including an outer
component and an inner component, wherein the inner
component and outer component are separated from each other
in a first location and a second location, the inner component
including adjacent, flat outer edges;
a first magnet disposed in the first location and having a
first polarity; and
a second magnet disposed in the second location adjacent
to the first magnet and having a second polarity opposite the
first magnet;
wherein the first and second magnets each include two
endpoints and have a depth measured from an inner magnet
surface to an outer magnet surface measured in a radial
direction extending from the axis of rotation, the depth
decreases from a maximum value to a minimum value, the
minimum value being measured at the endpoints, and wherein
rotation of the outer mover causes the inner mover to rotate.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art2 (AAPA) in
view of Cullen et al. (US 7,557,481 B2, issued July 7, 2009) in the Final
2 Applicant Admitted Prior Art includes Figure 1 of Appellant’s application
and the portion of Appellant’s Specification that describes Figure 1
(paragraphs 8 and 12—16).
2
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
Office Action entered May 11, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the
rejection in the Answer entered June 13, 2016 (“Ans.”).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group on the basis of
claims 1 and 9, to which we limit our discussion. App. Br. 8; 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that AAPA discloses a magnetic coupling having
all of the features recited in claim 1, except an inner component of an outer
mover that includes adjacent, flat, outer edges; and first and second magnets
in an outer mover that each include two endpoints and have a depth
measured from an inner magnet surface to an outer magnet surface measured
in a radial direction extending from the axis of rotation, the depth decreasing
from a maximum value to a minimum value, the minimum value being
measured at the endpoints. Final Act. 3. With respect to claim 9, the
Examiner finds that AAPA discloses a magnetic coupling having all the
features recited in the claim, except an inner component of an outer mover
that includes adjacent, flat, outer edges. Final Act. 7—8.
The Examiner relies on Cullen for suggesting the features of claims 1
and 9 missing from AAPA. Final Act. 3^4. Cullen discloses a rotor
(mover) for an electrical machine comprising rotor body 12 (inner
component), first and second magnets 18 coupled to rotor body 12, and
retainer 22 (outer component) that retains the magnets to rotor body 12.
3
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
Cullen col. 1,11. 34—36; Fig 5. Cullen discloses that rotor body 12 (inner
component) includes adjacent, flat, outer edges 19. Cullen Fig. 5. Cullen
further discloses that first and second magnets 18 each include two
endpoints, and have a depth measured from an inner magnet surface to an
outer magnet surface measured in a radial direction extending from the axis
of rotation, the depth decreasing from a maximum value to a minimum
value, the minimum value measured at the endpoints. Id.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led at the time of Appellant’s invention to modify the magnetic
coupling of AAPA to minimize flux leakage as disclosed in Cullen by
including an inner component for the outer mover that has adjacent, flat,
outer edges as disclosed in Cullen, and to include first and second magnets
in the outer mover that have a depth measured from an inner surface to an
outer surface that decreases from a maximum value to a minimum value at
the magnet endpoints as disclosed in Cullen. Final Act. 4—5.
Appellant argues that Cullen discloses a rotor that rotates within a
stator, and does not disclose an outer mover that surrounds an inner mover.
App. Br. 8. Appellant contends that if one of ordinary skill in the art added
Cullen’s rotor to the magnetic coupling of AAPA, the outer mover recited in
claims 1 and 9 would not result. Id.
However, Appellant’s arguments do not address the modification of
AAPA proposed by the Examiner. AAPA discloses a magnetic coupling in
which outer mover 102 surrounds inner mover 104. Spec. 114; Fig. 1. As
discussed above, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to modify outer mover 102 of AAPA to include an
inner component having adjacent, flat, outer edges as disclosed in Cullen,
4
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
and to include magnets shaped as disclosed in Cullen such that the minimum
depth of the magnets is at their endpoints. Therefore, the magnetic coupling
resulting from the Examiner’s proposed modification of outer mover 102 of
AAPA would include modified outer mover 102 surrounding inner mover
104, as recited in claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant further argues that claims 1 and 9 require rotation of the
outer mover to cause rotation of the inner mover. App. Br. 8. Appellant
contends that because Cullen’s rotor rotates relative to a stationary stator to
create energy, if Cullen’s rotor were added to the magnetic coupling of
AAP A, “it would not create energy at all and the primary purpose and
function of Cullen would be thwarted.” Id.
However, Appellant’s arguments again do not address the
modification of AAPA proposed by the Examiner. Appellant’s
Specification discloses that rotation of outer mover 102 of AAPA causes
inner mover 104 of AAPA to rotate due to attractive/repulsive forces
between magnets 114, 112 in the inner and outer movers. Spec. 115; Fig. 1.
Modifying outer mover 102 of AAPA as proposed by the Examiner to
include an inner component having adjacent, flat, outer edges as disclosed in
Cullen, and to include magnets shaped as disclosed in Cullen, would result
in a magnetic coupling in which rotation of modified outer mover 102 would
still cause inner mover 104 to rotate, because attractive/repulsive forces
would still exist between magnets 114, 112 in the inner and outer movers.
Appellant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Cullen’s rotor and the
5
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
magnetic coupling of AAPA “would still not have the magnet (or spaces for
magnets) as defined in the outer mover of claims 1 and 9.” App. Br. 8.
However, as discussed above, Cullen’s rotor includes magnets shaped
as recited in claim 1—having a depth measured from an inner magnet
surface to an outer magnet surface measured in a radial direction extending
from the axis of rotation, which decreases from a maximum value to a
minimum value measured at an endpoint of the magnets. Therefore,
modifying outer mover 102 of the magnetic coupling of AAPA as proposed
by the Examiner to include an inner component having adjacent, flat, outer
edges as disclosed in Cullen, and to include magnets shaped as disclosed in
Cullen, would result in a magnetic coupling having an outer mover that
includes magnets shaped as recited in claim 1, and having an inner
component defining a plurality of volumes between the outer edges of the
inner component and wall 108 (outer component) of the outer mover, as
recited in claim 9.3 Spec. 113; Fig. 1. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments
are unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
3 We note that claim 9 does not recite first and second magnets that “each
include two endpoints and have a depth measured from an inner magnet
surface to an outer magnet surface measured in a radial direction extending
from the axis of rotation, the depth decreases from a maximum value to a
minimum value, the minimum value being measured at the endpoints,” as
recited in claim 1. Rather, claim 9 recites only that the outer mover includes
an outer component and an inner component, and “the inner component
includes a cylindrical inner surface and an outer surface having a plurality of
adjacent, flat outer edges defining a geometric shape and disposed within the
outer component to define a plurality of volumes between the outer edges
and the outer component.”
6
Appeal 2016-007822
Application 13/158,604
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above and in the Final Action and the
Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
7