FUJI ELECTRIC CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 15, 20212020005401 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2021) 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. 15/347,392 11/09/2016 Toshiharu MOCHIDA 1639.1102 1256 21171 7590 07/15/2021 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SUITE 700 1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER MORAZA, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/15/2021 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): ptomail@s-n-h.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOSHIHARU MOCHIDA, AKIO TOBA, HIROSHI SHIMADA, HIROFUMI NISHIMURA, and NOBUYUKI SASAKI Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, and 11–18. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a permanent magnet embedded rotating electrical machine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A permanent magnet embedded rotating electrical machine comprising: a rotor comprised of a plurality of stacked rotor steel plates, the rotor having a plurality of poles, each of the poles configured by two permanent magnets embedded in an interior of the rotor, and in each of the plurality of poles, two magnet embedding holes and a center bridge between the two magnet embedding holes, each of the two magnet embedding holes housing one of the two permanent magnets configuring the respective pole, the two magnet embedding holes being arranged in an inverted V-shape having an apex facing away from a central axis of rotation of the rotor, each of the two magnet embedding holes having an exposed end opposite the apex so that an exposed end of the corresponding one of the two permanent magnets faces the exposed end of the corresponding magnet embedding hole and away from an outer peripheral edge of the rotor, the exposed end of the magnet embedding hole extending to the outer peripheral edge of the rotor, each of the plurality of stacked rotor steel plates has, in a region thereof between an inscribed circle of the magnet embedding holes and an outer periphery of the rotor, a structure, formed by an auxiliary process, to fix positions of neighboring plates of the plurality of stacked rotor steel plates. Independent claim 17 recites a permanent magnet embedded electrical machine similar to that of claim 1 (Claims App. iv–v). Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hershberger US 4,327,302 Apr. 27, 1982 Hino US 2006/0113858 A1 June 1, 2006 Kagami (“Kagami ’234”) US 2013/0106234 A1 May 2, 2013 Hazeyama US 2014/0091663 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 Kagami (“Kagami ’293”) US 2014/0210293 A1 July 31, 2014 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18 103 Kagami ’234, Hino 5, 6, 13, 14 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Hershberger 7, 15, 17 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Kagami ’293 8, 16 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Hazeyama OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record and each of Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed March 16, 2020 and the Reply Brief filed July 15, 2020, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the rejections for the reasons expressed Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 4 by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer (e.g., Ans. 3–10 (dated May 15, 2020)). We add the following for emphasis. In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements or steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Appellant does not specifically dispute most of the Examiner’s findings with respect to the teachings of Kagami ’234 and Hino except for alleging that one of ordinary skill would not have been led to combine Kagami ’234 and Hino in any fashion. Appellant argues further that the reconstruction of Kagami ’234 based on Hino teaches away from the claimed inverted V-shape magnet arrangement and that the reconstruction does not arrive at the claimed exposed end of the corresponding one of the two permanent magnets: (1) facing the exposed end of the corresponding embedding hole, and (2) facing away from an outer peripheral edge of the rotor, and with the exposed end of the magnet embedding hole extending to the outer peripheral edge of the rotor, as required by claims 1 and 17 (e.g., Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 1–4). Appellant, however, has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s position that modifying Kagami ’234 based on Hino involves merely modifying Kagami ’234 such that its V-shape magnet structure is inverted Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 5 into an inverted V-shape magnet arrangement. The Examiner further points out that the inverted V-shape structure is one that is taught by Hino as advantageous for reducing stress concentration of the rotor (e.g., Ans. 5–7; see also Hino, ¶ 151, Fig. 21). The Examiner explains that this modification results in the bridge portion of Kagami ’234 moving to the outer circumference such that the inner ends of the magnets move up and the outer ends move down. The Examiner further points out that reconstructing Kagami ’234 based on Hino results in features already taught by Kagami ’234. In other words, the Examiner points out that Kagami ’234 already teaches the exposed end of the corresponding one of the two permanent magnets: (1) facing the exposed end of the corresponding embedding hole, and (2) facing away from an outer peripheral edge of the rotor, and with the exposed end of the magnet embedding hole extending to the outer peripheral edge of the rotor, as required by claims 1 and 17 (e.g., Final Act. 6–8). Appellant argues further that the Examiner’s position is based on using the claims as a roadmap in order to make the claimed modifications to arrive at the claimed invention, such that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight (Reply Br. 2–3). This argument is not sufficient to show reversible error. As the Examiner aptly points out, Kagami ’234 teaches all of the claimed features of the claimed machine except for the inverted V-shape magnet arrangement. The Examiner then incorporates Hino’s inverted V-shape magnet arrangement and the modified locations of the ends of the magnets and their relation to the periphery edge of the rotor (Ans. 6–7). As the Examiner explains, it would not have been beyond the knowledge and reasonable creativity of the skilled artisan to rely on Hino to teach the inverted V-shape magnet arrangement and the movement of the Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 6 bridge portion of Kagami ’234 to move further out toward the outer circumference of the rotor (see, e.g., Kagami ’234: labeled as “220” of Fig. 4). Id. With respect to claim 17, the Examiner’s position is well supported that Kagami ‘293 teaches the claimed outer peripheral surface of at least one rotor has a radius of curvature smaller than the distance from the central axis of rotation of the rotor to an outermost peripheral portion of the rotor (Ans. 9–10; Final Act. 17–22). However, with respect to claim 17, Appellant makes a similar argument to that of claim 1, that it is improper for the Examiner to have reconstructed the combination of Kagami ’234/Hino to further incorporate the teaching of Kagami ’293 merely because Kagami ’293 does not teach the inverted V-shape magnet arrangement (Appeal Br. 11–12). Thus, Appellant fails to provide a sufficient argument as to why reconstructing Kagami ’234/Hino based on Kagami ’293 would be beyond the knowledge and reasonable creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Examiner provides a clear motivation that the smaller radius of curvature portion reduces cogging torque which is an advantage in the art as explained by Kagami ’293 (Final Act. 17–22, see, e.g., Kagami ’293, ¶¶ 17– 21, 25). Therefore, Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not have been led to combine Kagami ’234/Hino and Kagami ’293 is not sufficient to show reversible error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 17, as well as all claims dependent thereon, noting that Appellant relies substantially upon the arguments made for claims 1 and 17 for all the other claims (see also, Appeal Br. 4–12). Appeal 2020-005401 Application 15/347,392 7 The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18 103 Kagami ’234, Hino 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 18 5, 6, 13, 14 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Hershberger 5, 6, 13, 14 7, 15, 17 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Kagami ’293 7, 15, 17 8, 16 103 Kagami ’234, Hino, Hazeyama 8, 16 Overall Outcome 1, 3–9, 11–18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation