Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2020

2020002673 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2020)

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.
15/039,051 05/25/2016 Jarkko Keinänen VTT 394 US 5073
95002 7590 12/22/2020
Laine IP Oy
PO Box 339
Helsinki, FI-00181
FINLAND
EXAMINER
BOWES, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2020 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):
USDesk@laineip.fi
posti@laineip.fi
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JARKKO KEINÄNEN, KALLE VEHVILÄINEN,
and ISMO VESSONEN

Appeal 2020-002673
Application 15/039,051
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 13 is withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 2 (mailed Jan. 22, 2018).
Appeal 2020-002673
Application 15/039,051

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A suspension arrangement for suspending an object to a
frame and for protection against excessive excitation forces
(Fe) transmitted between the frame and the object, the
arrangement comprising:
– a first suspension element, which is configured to directly
suspend the object to the frame, and
– a second suspension element, which is configured to
suspend the object to the frame,
wherein
– the second suspension element is configured to suspend
the object to the frame through a magnetic coupling
between the object and the second suspension element,
wherein the magnetic coupling comprises a permanent
magnet, and
wherein
– the suspension arrangement is configured to magnetically
decouple the second suspension element from the object
when the excitation force (Fe) transmitted between the
frame and the object exceeds a magnetic coupling force
(Fh).

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hansen US 3,952,979 Apr. 27, 1976
Paulides et al.
(“Paulides”)
US 2012/0119463 A1 May 17, 2012
Akagi et al. (“Akagi”) JP 61146610 A July 4, 1986

Appeal 2020-002673
Application 15/039,051

3

Rejections
Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Akagi in view of Paulides.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Akagi in view of Paulides and Hansen.

ANALYSIS
For the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Akagi teaches
substantially all of the claimed suspension arrangement. Final Act. 2–3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Akagi teaches suspension arrangement A,
which includes first suspension element 2a and second suspension element
2b, where second suspension element 2b suspends object 1 to frame 4
through magnetic coupling 3. Id. The Examiner also finds that Akagi fails
to teach, but that Paulides teaches “a magnetic spring and wherein the
magnetic coupling comprises a permanent magnet.” Id. at 3; see Paulides
¶¶ 22, 48 (“permanent magnets 4, 4”), Fig. 1.
The Appellant points out that Paulides’ magnetic spring uses
“permanent magnets to create and maintain a gap (3) between the object
and the suspension element as shown . . . in Figure 1.” Appeal Br. 10. The
Appellant’s point highlights a distinction between Paulides’ magnetic spring
and a magnetic coupling, i.e., the magnetic coupling requires a coupling
interface between coupling elements whereas the magnetic spring does not.
See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 4a, 5:29–31 (“[T]he coupling interface can be also
constructed so that the magnet 141 is in the middle of the magnetic element
142 or magnet 141 holds the magnetic element 142 from the side.”); Akagi,
Fig. 2. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner’s finding that Paulides
Appeal 2020-002673
Application 15/039,051

4

teaches “a magnetic spring and wherein the magnetic coupling comprises a
permanent magnet” is not well supported because the Examiner fails to
adequately establish how Paulides teaches a magnetic coupling.
The remainder of the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 proposes that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the electromagnets of Akagi et al by combining them
with permanent magnets as taught by Paulides et al in order to
enhance the strength of the magnet field (Paulides et al: [0022])
and provide power savings depending on the desired amount of
damping.
Final Act. 3 (alteration in original). According to the Examiner, the
proposed modification is supported by “two alternate motivations that may
be used in tandem or independently.” See Ans. 6. The motivations, in
tandem or independently, attempt to support the Examiner’s modification of
Akagi’s magnetic coupling 3 in view of Paulides’ teachings, which are
particular to a magnetic spring. Supra.
In this case, the Examiner fails to adequately establish on the record
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied operating principles
from Paulides’ magnetic spring, which lacks a coupling interface, to modify
the operating principles of the coupling interface between Akagi’s magnetic
coupling 3 and object 1. See also Appeal Br. 9–12, 15. Therefore, we
determine that the reasoning articulated by the Examiner lacks sufficient
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (cited with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Appeal 2020-002673
Application 15/039,051

5

Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 8–12. Further, the Examiner fails
to rely on Hansen in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5 and 7.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6,
8–12
103 Akagi, Paulides

1–4, 6,
8–12
5, 7 103 Akagi, Paulides,
Hansen
5, 7
Overall
Outcome
1–12

REVERSED