Ex Parte Semmer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13152526 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
13/152,526 06/03/2011 Silvio Semmer 2010P07170US 7064
22116 7590 06/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HANH N
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SILVIO SEMMER
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’
decision finally rejecting claims 9 and 12—18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Representative claim 9 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated May 11, 2015 (“App. Br.”). The limitation at issue is
italicized.
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
9. A permanent magnet machine, comprising:
a stator comprising a plurality of stator tooth;
a rotor rotatable around the stator comprising a plurality
of permanent magnets arranged in a circumferential direction
forming a plurality of poles,
wherein each pole comprises two or more magnets of the
permanent magnets magnetised in a same direction and
disposed with each other with a distance; and
wherein the magnetised direction of the two or more
magnets in each pole is opposite from the magnetised direction
of the two or more magnets in a neighbouring pole; and
wherein the distance between the magnets magnetised in
the same direction is equal to the distance between
neighbouring magnets magnetised in the opposite direction.
App. Br. 13.
Claim 18, the other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a wind
turbine wherein, similar to claim 9 “the distance between the magnets magnetised
in the same direction is equal to the distance between neighbouring magnets
magnetised in the opposite direction.” App. Br. 14.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 9, 12—15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Kimura et al.;1 and
(2) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kimura in
view of Egawa.2
1 US 2009/0015090 Al, published January 15, 2009 (“Kimura”).
2 JP 2007195304 A, published August 2, 2007 (“Egawa”).
2
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
The Examiner finds Kimura discloses a permanent magnet machine
comprising, inter alia, a rotor comprising a plurality of permanent magnets
forming a plurality of poles. The Examiner finds:
[E]ach pole comprises two or more magnets . . . magnetised in a same
direction and disposed with each other with a distance; and wherein
the magnetized direction of two or more magnets in each pole is
opposite from the magnetized direction of two or more magnets in
neighbouring pole and wherein the distance between the magnets
magnetised in the same direction (magnetic pole bridge 15 in Fig. 5)
is equal to the distance between neighbouring magnets magnetised in
the opposite direction ((magnetic pole bridge 15).
Final 2;3 see also Final 3^4. The Examiner finds that “[a]ll the pole bridges 15
should have the same dimension otherwise they should be named in different
characters because they are different components.” Final 6; see also Ans. 4
(“reference numerals are used to identify the component and the same components
should be indentical [sic, identical] parts with the same dimensions”).4
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning is flawed because “the
reference numerals are merely there to identify the component/feature, and not to
illustrate dimensions.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds:
[I]n order to make an electric motor running smoothly, the magnetic
fields generated by permanent magnets in rotor poles that interact with
the stator poles must be constant. In other words, the magnetic fields
generated by permanent magnets in adjacent rotor poles must have the
same strength with opposite direction. Therefore, in Kimura’s
reference, the magnetic pole bridge 15 between two magnet segments
3 Final Office Action dated September 30, 2014.
4 Examiner’s Answer dated December 24, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
(3, 3) of North pole must be equal to the magnetic pole bridge 15
between two magnet segments (3, 3) of South pole to make the
electric motor running smoothly.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
The Appellant argues:
[WJhether an electric motor runs smoothly or not has absolutely no
weight in determining patentability. This requirement in [sic, is] not
in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), nor has the
Examiner cited an authority requiring that inventions be functional or
efficient. Therefore, the Examiner’s use of this running smooth
rational is improper, and should have no bearing on how the Examiner
interprets the cited reference.
Reply Br. 5—6 (emphasis omitted).5
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner finds the width of each magnetic pole bridge 15 in Kimura’s rotor must
be the same for the disclosed permanent magnet machine to operate properly. The
Examiner’s finding is relevant to the § 102(b) rejection on appeal because it
supports a finding of inherency. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.”).
Significantly, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence or present any
technical reasoning demonstrating that the Examiner’s finding is erroneous. Thus,
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the width of
each magnetic pole bridge 15 is inherently the same.
The Appellant also contends that the claimed “distance between the magnets
magnetised in the same direction” corresponds to magnetic pole bridge 15 and the
claimed “distance between neighbouring magnets magnetised in the opposite
5 Reply Brief dated February 17, 2016.
4
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
direction” corresponds to interpolar bridge 14, not magnetic pole bridge 15 as
found by the Examiner. See App. Br. 9. The Appellant argues that “nothing in
Kimura discloses that the width of interpolar bridge 14 is the same as the width of
the magnetic pole bridge 15.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner interprets the claim limitation at issue as follows:
[T]he distance between the magnets magnetized in the same direction
(such as N & N) is equal to the distance between neighbouring
magnets magnetized in opposite direction (S & S) and the distance
between the two groups of magnets (or the distance between N & S[)]
can be different.[6]
Ans. 5. The Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner’s interpretation is
erroneous. Thus, it is of no moment that the width of interpolar bridge 14 and
magnetic pole bridge 15 may not be the same.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 102(b) rejection of claims 9 and 18 is
sustained. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
6 Consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation, paragraph 9 of the Appellant’s
Specification states:
According to a further development of the present invention all
permanent magnets can be arranged equidistantly. This means that
the distance between neighbouring magnets with the same polarity is
the same as the distance between neighbouring magnets with opposite
polarity.
Likewise, when all permanent magnets are arranged equidistantly, the distance
between a magnet with one polarity and a neighbouring magnet with opposite
polarity is the same as the distance between magnets with the same polarity.
However, the converse of Appellant’s statement in paragraph 9 is not true. That is,
when the distance between neighbouring magnets with the same polarity is the
same as the distance between neighbouring magnets with opposite polarity, the
magnets are not necessarily equidistant. In that case, the distance between a
magnet with one polarity and a neighbouring magnet with opposite polarity may or
may not be the same as the distance between magnets with the same polarity.
5
Appeal 2016-003489
Application 13/152,526
patentability of any of claims 12—15 and 17. Therefore, the § 102(b) rejection of
claims 12—15 and 17 is also sustained.
2. Rejection (2)
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or legal conclusions regarding Egawa, either alone or in combination with
Kimura. Rather, the Appellant argues that Egawa does not cure the deficiencies of
Kimura in the § 102(b) rejection of claims 9 and 18. App. Br. 11. For the reasons
set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the § 102(b) rejection of claims 9 and
18 that require curing by Egawa. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 16 is
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6