Ex Parte Vafakhah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2017

13673748 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 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.
13/673,748 11/09/2012 Behzad Vafakhah 83337636 2527
28395 7590 08/17/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC1
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,7482
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL3
1 Behzad Vafakhah, Shailesh Shrikant Kozarekar, and Vincent Skalski are
the named inventors.
2 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
3 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 9, 2012 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated Mar. 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Aug. 31, 2015 as corrected Nov. 19, 2015 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s
Answer dated June 16, 2016 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,748
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 8—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Thulin4
alone and together with additional references. Br. 4; Final Act. 2—7.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an inductor assembly of a DC-
DC converter. Spec. 11. A DC-DC converter may be used in electric
vehicles that have an electric machine for vehicle propulsion and a battery
whereby a voltage converter (the DC-DC converter) is connected between
the battery and the electric machine. Id. H 2, 3. Figure 5 below is an
exploded view of the inductor assembly described in the Specification:
Figure 5 depicts, left to right, core 212 having projections 222 and
post 220 connecting first and second ends 216, 218 followed by insulator
214 then conductor 210 wound into a helical coil then insulator 214. Id.
^Hf 43—47. Core 212 is formed of a magnetic material, insulator 214 is
4 US 2,608,610, issued Aug. 26, 1952.
2
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,748
formed of an electrically insulating polymeric material, and conductor 210 is
formed of a conductive material. Id. 44, 45, 47. The Specification
further describes a method of forming the inductor assembly by placing
conductor 210 and insulator 214 into a die and filling the die with a resin
mixture of magnetic powder and resin to solidity and form the core over the
conductor and the insulator into an integrated inductor assembly. Id. 1 54.
Claim 8 is also illustrative (disputed matter italicized):
8. An integrated inductor assembly comprising:
a coil defining a cavity; and
a core having at least two projections spaced radially
outward of the coil and interconnected by first and second ends,
the projections being angularly spaced apart from each other to
define openings between adjacent projections, and a post
extending through the cavity between the first and second ends;
wherein the core is formed as a unitary structure around
the coil.
Br. 2 (Claims App’x).
OPINION
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 10
The Examiner finds that claims 8 and 10 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over Thulin’s
integrated inductor assembly for the reasons stated on pages 2—3 of the Final
Action and pages 2—3 of the Answer.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error because “Thulin defines a core that is composed
of two shells (12) held together by a clamp (25). Br. 5 (citing Thulin 4:24—
27). Appellant concedes that “each of the shells individually may be
considered a unitary structure,” but argues that alone the shell “cannot be
3
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,748
considered to be a unitary structure around the coil as claimed.” Id.
Appellant asserts that “[e]ach shell has an open end so that, when
considering the shells individually, the structure does not extend around the
coil as claimed.” Id. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s finding
that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two
pieces would have reduced manufacturing cost and size is conclusory as the
Examiner has provided no reasoning how manufacturing cost and size would
be reduced nor does Thulin indicate manufacturing cost and size are at issue.
Id. at 6—7. Appellant also asserts that claim 10 should be allowed for the
same reasons as claim 8. Id. at 8. Appellant additionally argues that
reducing the size of the assembly would negatively impact the cooling
effectiveness of the assembly. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that “Thulin shows the core (lower shell 12)
is formed as a unitary structure around the coil (see Figs. 1-2, lower shell 12
is [a] unitary structure around the coil 16).” Ans. 14. The Examiner also
finds that “[although lower shell 12 has an open end, the structure still
extends around the coil 16 at least partially.” Id. Figure 2 of Thulin is
shown below:
Figure 2 of Thulin is an exploded view of a transformer “showing the split
core and concentric winding forms.” Thulin 3:42-44. The Examiner
4
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,748
responds to Appellant’s argument that one side of Thulin’s coil 16 is not
covered by shell 12 by noting that the feature relied upon by Appellant is not
recited in the rejected claim(s). Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s findings that Thulin discloses a core, that Thulin’s
core comprises a shell, and that the shell is a unitary structure (Final Act. 2—
3). Appellant’s argument that the shell is not “around the coil” (Br. 5) is not
supported by the evidence of record cited in this appeal. Appellant does not
adequately explain how the open end of Thulin’s unitary core structure, i.e.
shell 12, is precluded by claim 8. Nor does Appellant adequately explain
how shell 12 fails to be positioned “around the coil” as recited in claim 8.
Indeed, Thulin describes the relationship between the coil (winding 16) and
the core as being “concentric” (Thulin 3:43), which further supports the
Examiner’s finding that shell 12 is around the coil (Final Act. 3) or at least
partially around coil 16 (Ans. 14). Thus the Examiner’s finding that
Thulin’s shell 12 is formed as a unitary structure around the coil is supported
by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, in the absence of error identified in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we affirm the stated rejection.
Because Appellant challenges the rejection of claim 10 based on the same
arguments concerning claim 8 (Br. 8), we affirm the rejection of claim 10 for
the same reasons discussed above.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9 and 11—13
The Examiner finds that claim 9 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over the combination of
5
Appeal 2016-008088
Application 13/673,748
Thulin with any one of three secondary references for the reasons stated on
pages 3—5 of the Final Action and pages 4—5 of the Answer. The Examiner
also finds that claims 11—13 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention over the combination of Thulin
with a fourth secondary reference for the reasons stated on page 6—7 of the
Final Action and pages 6—7 of the Answer.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9 and 11—13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in error for the same reasons discussed with
respect to claim 8. Br. 9. In addition, Appellant asserts that the secondary
references do not remedy the deficiencies of Thulin as asserted in connection
with claim 8. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred
in finding that Thulin’s core is a unitary structure that extends around the
coil at least partially for the reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 8. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11—
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8—13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6