Ex Parte Smith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2008

09961859 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD G. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: July 17, 2008
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

2
Appellant invented a latching electromagnetically actuable device
comprising: an electromagnet comprising an armature and a core, wherein
at least one of the armature and the core is of a magnetically hard material;
an electrical coil; a housing supporting the electromagnet and the coil; and a
specified control circuit having a first input and a second input and a current
limit device connected to the second input (Specification, hereinafter
“Spec.,” 3, ll. 4-21). According to Appellant “[e]nergizing the coil in a first
direction magnetizes the magnetically hard material to draw the armature
and core together and latch the electromagnet,” while “[e]nergizing the coil
in a second direction releases the electromagnet” (Spec. 3, ll. 8-10).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A latching electromagnetically actuable device
comprising:
an electromagnet comprising an armature and a core, at
least one of the armature and the core being of a magnetically
hard material;
an electrical coil;
a housing supporting the electromagnet and the coil,
wherein energizing the coil in a first direction magnetizes the
magnetically hard material to draw the armature and core
together and latch the electromagnet, and energizing the coil in
a second direction releases the electromagnet; and
a control circuit having a first input and a second input
and a current limit device connected to the second input,
whereby the electromagnet is latched responsive to the first
input being energized and released responsive to the second
input being energized, the current limit device limiting release
current relative to latch current so the electromagnet is not
remagnetized when it is released.
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Baratelli 3,569,890 Mar. 9, 1971
Howell 4,675,776 Jun. 23, 1987
Wainwright GB 2 098 400 A Nov. 17, 1982

The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (i) claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-18, and 20-24 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wainwright and Howell; and
(ii) claims 4 and 11 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Wainwright and Baratelli (Examiner’s Answer mailed May 15, 2007,
hereinafter “Ans.,” 4-9).

ISSUE
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of appealed claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and
20-24 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in
view of the applied prior art references?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Referring to Figures 1 and 2, Appellant’s Specification
describes a control system (i.e., control circuit) as follows: “In
accordance with the invention, resistor 66 limits current during
the release operation so that the electromagnet 16 is not fully
magnetized in the opposite polarity” (Emphasis added; Spec. 8,
ll. 11-13).
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

4
2. Appellant’s Specification describes an alternative embodiment
of a control circuit as follows (Emphasis added; Spec. 8, l. 18 –
9, l. 11):
Referring to Fig. 3, an electrical schematic
illustrates a control system 80 according to an
alternative embodiment of the invention. In this
embodiment, the coil 18 includes a main winding
82 and an opposite polarity release winding 84. A
voltage in, VIN, supply 86 is connected to a
capacitor 88 and a logic circuit 90. The logic
circuit 90 is connected to the windings 82 and 84.
The logic circuit 90 latches the electromagnet 16,
see Fig. 1, by using a “dump” of the voltage from
the capacitor 88. The residual magnetism
maintains the electromagnet 16 latched. No
wattage is required for coil 18. To remain in the
“maintain” or “on” state, the logic circuit 90
monitors the input voltage and keeps a charge on
the capacitor 88. When the voltage input drops
into a defined “off” condition, the logic circuit 90
dumps the voltage from the capacitor 88 across the
release winding 84 and the residual magnetism is
dropped drown to a release level. The device
opens normally like any other contactor.
It will be appreciated by one of ordinary
skill in the art that the release winding could be
eliminated and reverse polarity power could be
provided through the main winding, as with the
embodiment of Fig. 2.
3. Wainwright describes a self latching relay as follows (p. 1, ll.
102-115):
In the system of the present invention the
self latching relay includes a coil, a movable
armature and a yoke. The armature moves
between a latched and a released position, and
operates switching contacts for switching the
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

5
mains supply. A capacitor is arranged to discharge
through the coil so as to create a magnetic field to
move the armature and complete a magnetic circuit
which remains completed by magnetic remanance
produced by the capacitor discharge. The armature
is released by producing a further capacitor
discharge through the coil in such a manner as to
destroy the remanant field and thereby release the
armature.
4. Wainwright teaches (p. 3, ll. 37-43): “When the coil winding
L1 is energized as described with reference to Figure 1, a
magnetic field is set up in the yoke 12 by the coil 10, and
causes the armature 13 to be attracted into engagement with the
core 11, the armature pivoting at the hinge 18, 19 against the
tension force of spring 17.”
5. Wainwright further states (p. 3, ll. 79-90):
When the winding L2 is subsequently
energized, it establishes a transitory magnetic field
of opposite sense to the remanant field and of
sufficient strength to release the armature 13, such
that the spring 17 can pull the armature upwardly
and open a gap between the contacts MS 1, 2. It
will be appreciated that the field strength required
to release the relay is substantially less than that
required to latch it, and hence the winding L2
requires fewer turns than winding L1 or can
utili[z]e reduced diameter wire.
6. Howell was cited to show “a single coil” (Ans. 5).
7. Baratelli was cited to “that [it] is common knowledge in the art
to have a two winding system to operate the armature” (Ans. 8).

Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]o properly compare the [prior art] reference with the claims at
issue, we must construe the [disputed] term...to ascertain its scope and
meaning.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is well
settled that in proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO), claims must be interpreted by giving words their broadest reasonable
meanings in their ordinary usage, taking into account the written description
found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054; In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, the interpretation of
the claim language must be “reasonable in light of the totality of the written
description.” In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
When specific terms are used exclusively to identify a particular type
of component, those terms are construed to be limited to that component.
Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1315, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (holding that “fuel injection system component” with “a polymer
[material] having electrically conductive fibers distributed randomly
throughout” is limited to a fuel filter where “[t]he fuel filter was the only
component of an EFI system that the written description disclosed as having
a polymer housing with electrically conductive fibers interlaced therein.”);
In re Baker Hughes, 215 F.3d at 1302 (holding that “hydrocarbon” does not
include hydrocarbon gases where “[t]he written description uses the terms
‘evolve’ and ‘liberate’ several times and, in each instance, the terms are used
to describe the emission of hydrogen sulfide from a liquid hydrocarbon,
particularly petroleum residua.”).

Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

7

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejections are in error because
“Wainwright does not disclose or suggest any current limit device” as
required by all the claims and neither Howell nor Baratelli cures this
deficiency. (Appeal Brief filed Dec. 18, 2006, hereinafter “Br.,” 6-7 and 10;
Facts 3-5). The Examiner, on the other hand, argues that Wainwright’s
“capacitor [c1] acts to limit the release current so that it is equivalent to the
latch current” (Ans. 9). Thus, the dispositive question is whether
Appellant’s claim recitation “current limit device connected to [the] second
input” reads on Wainwright’s capacitor C1.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s position is not well
founded. In Appellant’s Specification, the only device identified as a
“current limit device” is a resistor (Fact 1). While the Specification does
describe an alternative embodiment of a control circuit in which a logic
circuit 90 is used to control the voltage dump of a capacitor, it never
characterizes the capacitor itself as the current limit device (Fact 2). This
usage of terms is consistent with common knowledge that a capacitor is an
energy storage device (Br. 6), unlike a resistor which is known to limit
current.
Under these circumstances, we hold that the Examiner construction of
the term “current limit device” to encompass Wainwright’s capacitor was
unreasonable. Honeywell, 452 F.3d at 1315, 1318; In re Baker Hughes, 215
F.3d at 1302.
Furthermore, Wainwright teaches (Fact 4; p. 3, ll. 79-90):
When the winding L2 is subsequently energized, it
establishes a transitory magnetic field of opposite sense to the
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

8
remanant field and of sufficient strength to release the armature
13, such that the spring 17 can pull the armature upwardly and
open a gap between the contacts MS 1, 2. It will be appreciated
that the field strength required to release the relay is
substantially less than that required to latch it, and hence the
winding L2 requires fewer turns than winding L1 or can
utili[z]e reduced diameter wire.
By contrast, appealed claim 1, for example, requires “the current limit
device [to limit] release current relative to latch current so the electromagnet
is not remagnetized when it is released.” Other than unsupported
speculation (Ans. 9-10), the Examiner has not satisfactorily explained how
Wainwright’s capacitor performs the function recited in Appellant’s claim.
Because no alternative rationale that makes up for the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s stated position has been offered, we cannot affirm (Facts 6
and 7).

CONCLUSION
On this record, we determine that Appellant has demonstrated
reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of the
appealed claims would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art in view of the applied prior art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (i) claims 1-3,
6-10, 13-18, and 20-24 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Wainwright and Howell and (ii) claims 4 and 11 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Wainwright and Baratelli are reversed.
Appeal 2008-2201
Application 09/961,859

9
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision to reject appealed claims 1-4, 6-
11, 13-18, and 20-24 is reversed.
REVERSED

PL Initial:
sld

F. WILLIAM MCLAUGHLIN
WOOD PHILLIPS VAN SANTEN HOFFMAN & ERTEL
SUITE 3800
500 WEST MADISON STREET
CHICAGO IL 60661