Ex Parte Stancu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612534408 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/534,408 08/03/2009 CONSTANTIN C. STANCU P000132-ATC-CD 9571 (003.0306) 70422 7590 LKGlobal (GM) 7010 E. COCHISE ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253 12/22/2016 EXAMINER TRUONG, THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): docketing@lkglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CONSTANTIN C. STANCU, PETER J. SAVAGIAN, and ERIK HATCH Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5, 8—16, 18, and 21—26. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. An electrical machine rotor, comprising: a cylinder having an edge; a first slot proximate to the edge of the cylinder, the first slot at least partially closed by the edge; a second slot proximate to the edge of the cylinder and at least partially closed, the first slot and the second slot disposed equidistant from a center of the rotor; and a hairpin winding disposed within the first slot and the second slot, the hairpin winding comprising: a first leg disposed within the first slot; a second leg disposed within the second slot; and an end turn that joins the first leg to the second leg; wherein the rotor is configured for use in an alternating current (AC) machine. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Linkous Greutmann Cai et al. (hereafter “Cai”) Xu et al. (hereafter “Xu”) Nishihama et al. (hereafter “Nishihama”) US 4,095,332 US 4,437,230 US 6,894,417 B2 US 6,906,479 B2 JP 2005-304271 June 20, 1978 Mar. 20, 1984 May 17, 2005 June 14, 2005 Oct. 27, 2005 2 Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 THE REJECTIONS1 1. Claims 1—3, 5, 8, 14—16, 18, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishihama in view of Linkous and Cai. 2. Claims 9—13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Nishihama in view of Greutmann and Cai. 3. Claims 1, 14, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Linkous and Cai. 4. Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Greutmann and Cai. ANALYSIS We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based upon Appellants’ presented arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (l)(iv)(2014). We adopt the Examiner’s stated findings, reasoning, and conclusions in the record, and AFFIRM. We add the following for emphasis. 1 The Final Office Action included an objection to claim 21, a 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, rejection, and a 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph, rejection. Final Act. 2-4. In response, Appellants made amendments to the claims in the Response filed on April 25, 2013. In the Advisory Action mailed May 7, 2013, the statements made by the Examiner indicate that the objection to claim 21 and each of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections were resolved by the amendments entered by the Examiner. Also, the Examiner does not address the objection and the § 112 rejections in the Answer. Ans. 1—6. Therefore, these rejections and the objection are treated as having been withdrawn by the Examiner. 3 Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 Rejection 1 Appellants argue that the combination of Nishihama, Linkous, and Cai cannot properly be combined together without changing the principle of operation of one of the devices or rendering one of the devices to be unsuitable for its intended purpose for the reasons stated on pages 6—8 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 2—5 of the Reply Brief. More specifically, Appellants argue that the Nishihama system is a direct current (DC) rotor winding; however, the windings are manufactured outside the rotor and inserted radially into the opened rotor slots. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue, in contrast, Appellants’ winding is manufactured onto the rotor itself, hairpin by hairpin, by axial insertion, bending and welding of the opened ends to form a continuous circuit. Appeal Br. 6—7. Appellants submit that Nishihama’s method cannot be applied in Appellants’ case because Appellants’ slots are semi-closed. Id. at 7. Appellants also argue that Cai concerns a hairpin axially inserted winding; however, in Cai the winding is a three phase alternating current (AC) winding that is placed in the stator (rather than the rotor) of the motor. Id. Appellants further argue that Linkous describes an AC induction machine rotor system, and the winding of this rotor is an AC winding. Id. Appellants state that in one of the embodiments, Linkous uses hairpins; however, those hairpins are short- circuited at the end opposed to the “U” bend by a conductive ring after insertion into the rotor. Id. Appellants argue that hairpins are not bent after insertion and welded for forming a continuous circuit. Id. Appellants submit that thus Linkous does not apply in the context of Appellants’ claims from a manufacturing method standpoint and a principle standpoint (e.g., Linkous uses an AC winding, while Appellants use a DC). Id. 4 Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned arguments pertaining to how the windings of the applied art are manufactured for the reasons stated by the Examiner on page 4 of the Answer. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appellants also argue that the Nishihama, Linkous, and Cai references are not properly combinable because combining these references in the manner suggested by the Examiner would change the principle of operation and/or render the systems of one or more of the references unsuitable for their intended purpose. Appeal Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants argue that if one were to use the AC winding of Cai on the rotor of Linkous, the resulting device would no longer be an asynchronous machine (or induction machine) (as is the case in Linkous). Appeal Br. 7. Appellants also argue that the winding of Cai is a stator winding, rather than a rotor winding as required in Nishihama. Id. Appellants further argue that the AC rotor winding in Linkous also would not be compatible as a substitute for the DC rotor winding of Nishihama. Id. We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned arguments. As pointed out by the Examiner on page 5 of the Answer, the rejection relies upon Linkous and Cai only for teaching that it is known to use a hairpin winding type for a rotor of an electrical machine (disclosed by Linkous), and for teaching the advantages of having the hairpin winding (disclosed by Cai in col. 5:56—63), but not for replacing the entire operation of the rotor as implied by Appellants’ aforementioned arguments. As also stated by the Examiner (Ans. 3): 5 Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants have not adequately addressed the merits of the rejection, but rather argue as if the Examiner proposed to replace the entire operation of the rotor (as stated by the Examiner, supra). Such arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants argue that it appears the Examiner is arguing that AC rotor windings and DC rotor winders are interchangeable (Reply Br. 3—4), but this is not the case. As stated by the Examiner, the Examiner is not replacing an entire operation of the rotor (Ans. 3). The Examiner also states that the hairpin winding type of Greutmann and Cai is capable of use as an AC winding when alternating current is applied or as a DC winding when direct current is applied. Id. at 5. The Examiner also states that Greutmann is silent regarding the winding detail. Id. at 5—6. In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. Rejection 2 Appellants again argue the idea that because the winding in Greutmann is an (AC) winding, a change in the principle of operation of Nishihama and Xu would occur. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2—5. We likewise are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons set forth on pages 5—6 of the Answer, and as discussed supra, and affirm Rejection 2. 6 Appeal 2014-001033 Application 12/534,408 Rejections 3 and 4 Appellants rely upon similar arguments relied upon for Rejections 1 and 2. Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2—5. As such, we affirm Rejections 3 and 4 for similar reason discussed, supra. The Examiner’s response in made on page 6 of the Answer. We add that with further regard to claim 15, on page 11 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner pointed to teachings in Linkous regarding a slot that is substantially closed by a material of a core of the rotor, and therefore addressed this claim limitation. Linkous, Figures 12 or 14. Appellants argue that the material is a separate material such as wedge. Reply Br. 5. However, Appellants do not point to evidence in the record indicating the material is a wedge that is separate from the rotor. Linkous’ discussion of these figures is within the context of a rotor, in support of the Examiner’s interpretation. DECISION Each 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). ORDER AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation