Ex Parte Telep et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2011

11245340 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2011)

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.
11/245,340 10/06/2005 Robert J. Telep DKT 05019 (BWI-00138) 3505
68945 7590 07/21/2011
WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & OZGA, P.C.
P.O. BOX 70098
ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48307
EXAMINER
DESAI, NAISHADH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. TELEP and ROBERT D. KEEFOVER
____________

Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4. Claims 5-16 were withdrawn from consideration.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention provides an electric motor having a stator and a
magnetized rotor wherein at least one of the stator poles has a different area
confronting the poles of the rotor than the other stator poles and where the
air gap between each stator pole and each rotor pole is different. See
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A motor comprising:

a stator having at least two magnetic stator poles;

a rotor rotatably disposed in said stator wherein said rotor
has at least two magnetic rotor poles, wherein said at least two
stator poles each have a different confronting area defined in
part by the height of the stator poles, compared to said
confronting area defined in part by the height of said at least
two rotor poles;

an air gap between each of said at least two rotor poles
said at least two stator poles; wherein the distance of said air
gap between each said at least two stator poles and said at least
two rotor poles is different; and

a coil surrounding said at least one of said at least two
stator poles.

Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Prudham US 5,880,551 Mar. 9, 1999

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Prudham.1

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Prudham
discloses a motor having at least two stator poles each having a different
confronting area. The Examiner bases this assertion on an analysis of an
enlarged portion of the drawings of Prudham which the Examiner asserts
discloses differences in the confronting area between pole shoe 17 and rotor
2 and between pole shoe 12 and rotor 2. Ans. 3-7.
Appellants argue that Prudham does not disclose differences in
confronting area which are defined in part by the height of the stator poles
compared to the confronting area defined in part by the height of the rotor
poles. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. Appellants also urge that the enlarged
figures from Prudham relied upon by the Examiner “appear to be distorted.”
Reply Br. 7. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 1,
2008, the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 20, 2009, and the Reply Brief
filed May 22, 2009.
Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340

4
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 by
finding that Prudham anticipates an electric motor having at least two stator
poles each having a different confronting area where the differences in
confronting area is defined in part by the height of the stator poles compared
to the confronting area defined in part by the height of the rotor poles?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Prudham discloses an electric motor having at least two stator
poles. See Prudham, Abstract.
2. Prudham illustrates poles shoes 11 and 12, surrounded by electric
coils 20 and 21, and pole shoes 14-17 positioned on the side struts
of the Prudham stator; however, Prudham does not disclose that
the drawings are to scale. Prudham, col. 3, ll. 10-12; Fig. 1.

ANALYSIS
The entire basis for the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 is a graphic
analysis of an enlarged portion of Figure 1 of Prudham, which the Examiner
interprets to show that the confronting area between pole shoe 17 and rotor 2
and the confronting area between pole shoe 12 and rotor 2 are different. The
Examiner also asserts that Prudham depicts the claimed feature of different
air gaps between each of two stator poles and the rotor poles, as a result of
Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340

5
the graphic measurement of the distance between each pole shoe and the
rotor, at multiple different points on each pole shoe within the figures of
Prudham. Ans. 3-6.
Appellants assert that it is impossible to completely understand and
ascertain the confronting areas disclosed by Prudham by means of analysis
of the figures depicted therein. Reply Br. 5.
Because Prudham’s figures are not drawn to scale (FF2) the drawings
do not support a conclusion about the confronting area between the various
pole shoes and the rotor. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA
1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative
values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value”
(citation omitted)). See also In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 431 (CCPA 1956)
(“[I]t is well settled that the drawings of patent applications are not
necessarily scale or working drawings. . . .”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592
(CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a
patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged
invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of
elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability” (citation
omitted)). See also MPEP § 2125.
Consequently, we conclude the Examiner’s finding is not supported
by the reference.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 under § 102.

Appeal 2009-014540
Application 11/245,340

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw