Tillotson, Brian Jay. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14933333 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/933,333 11/05/2015 Brian Jay Tillotson 15-0892-US-NP 5201
63759 7590 11/04/2019
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
DALLAS, TX 75219
EXAMINER
BOUZIANE, SAID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte BRIAN JAY TILLOTSON and PENG ZENG
(Applicant: THE BOEING COMPANY)
____________

Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

2
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:

1. An apparatus comprising:
a rotor (116) comprising an electrically conductive
material (120), wherein the rotor (116) is rotatable about an axis
(122);
stator coils (118) positioned adjacent to the rotor (116)
such that an eddy current (128) is generated in the rotor (116)
when an alternating current (130) flows through the stator coils
(118); and
a current control system (112) that controls a flow of the
alternating current (130) through the stator coils (118) based on
a position (134) of the rotor (116), wherein a stator coil (136) in
the stator coils (118) generates an alternating magnetic field
(144) when the alternating current (130) flows through the
stator coil (136) causing the eddy current (128) in the rotor
(116) such that a repulsive force (140) between the stator coil
(136) and the rotor (116) rotates the rotor (116) about the axis
(122).

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Griepentrog US 2005/0225188 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Jansen US 2007/0001533 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
Spooner US 2008/0124233 A1 May 29, 2008
Stiesdal US 2010/0072854 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Frölich US 2016/0141923 A1 May 19, 2016

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4, 7–11, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Spooner in view of Frölich.
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

3
2. Claims 5, 19, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spooner in view of Frölich, and further in view of
Jansen.
3. Claims 6, 12–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spooner in view of Frölich and Jansen, and further
in view of Griepentrog.
4. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spooner in view Stiesdal.

ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellant’s position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s
decision for the reasons provided by Appellant in the record, and add the
following for emphasis.

Rejections 1–3
Spooner describes an electric motor comprising a rotor 22 surrounded
by a fixed stator 23. The rotor 22a may be generally cylindrical (Spooner,
Fig. 2a) or the rotor 22b may be generally disk like (Spooner, Fig. 2b). The
stator comprises an array of field coils wound around respective pole pieces
which when appropriately energized with an AC supply will generate a
rotating magnetic field in a conventional way. The magnetic flux produced
by the stator coils induces eddy currents in the rotor which in turn generate a
magnetic field which interacts with the stator field. As the stator magnetic
field rotates, the interaction of the magnetic fields generated by the stator
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

4
and the rotor causes the rotor to rotate. Spooner, paras. [0022]–[0024], Figs.
2a and 2b.
The Examiner admits that Spooner does not teach that the flow of
alternating current through the stator coils is controlled based on a position
of the rotor, as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Final Act. 5. However, the
Examiner asserts that current control in accordance with a position of the
rotor is conventional and commonly known for motor control systems, as
taught, for example, by Frölich. Id.
Frölich teaches a rotor comprising a main body 6 which consists of a
material with a low magnetic conductivity. Rotor segments 13 are situated in
depressions 9 in the main body 6, which rotor segments consist of material
having good magnetic conductivity. Frölich, paras. [0059]–[0061], Figs. 1-3.
The teeth 24 of a stator 23 are provided in a known manner with windings.
On supplying with a rotary current, they generate a rotary field circulating in
the air gap between the stator 23 and the rotor. The stator teeth 24 with the
energized windings respectively attract the nearest rotor segments 13 of the
rotor and are less energized sinusoidally in a known manner when the rotor
segments 13 of the rotor come nearer to the stator teeth 24 which are
attracting them. At the same time, the next phase to the other stator teeth 24
is energized increasingly more intensively, which in turn attract other rotor
segments 13. With rotor position detection, it is ensured that the optimum
phase position of the stator currents is controlled. Frölich, para.
[0073], Fig. 4.
Appellant argues that the teachings of Frölich with respect to
controlling the current in a stator in accordance with the position of a rotor
are not relevant to the electric motor described in Spooner. Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

5
Appellant argues that Frölich teaches using rotor position detection to
determine the position of magnetically conductive segments of the rotor
relative to teeth of the stator. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that,
however, in Spooner the rotor is a unitary solid cylinder or disk of
ferromagnetic material, and thus, the rotor in the motor described in Spooner
does not have any segments whose position may be determined. Appeal Br.
10. Appellant submits that therefore the teaching of Frölich to determine the
positions of magnetically conductive segments of the rotor for controlling
the current in a stator is not relevant to the motor described in Spooner and,
thus, there is no reason for combining this teaching of Frölich with the
teachings of Spooner. Id. We are persuaded by such argument. Notably,
the Examiner does not resolve this valid point raised by Appellant that in
Spooner, the rotor is a unitary solid cylinder or disk of ferromagnetic
material, and thus, the rotor in the motor described in Spooner does not have
any segments whose position may be determined, which is completely
different from the configuration and mechanism according to Frölich. Ans.
2–4. We thus affirm Rejections 1–3 (the Examiner does not use the
additional references applied in Rejection 2 and 3 to cure the deficiency in
the combination of Spooner in view of Frölich).

Rejection 4
Rejection 4 involves the rejection of independent claim 27 (and
dependent claim 28). Claim 27 is drawn to a method for controlling an
electric motor. Claim 27 features sending a direct current through a stator
coil to create an attractive force between the stator coil and the rotor when
the rotor is in a first position and sending an alternating current through the
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

6
stator coil to create a repulsive force between the stator coil and the rotor
when the rotor is in a second position. Thus, claim 27 features using both
attractive and repulsive forces to rotate the rotor of a motor.
Appellant argues that neither Spooner, nor Stiesdal, nor the
combination thereof, teach controlling the current in the stator such that
attractive force is used when the rotor is in one position and a repulsive force
is used when the rotor is in a second position, as recited claim 27. Appeal
Br. 12.
The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious “to modify the
invention of Spooner with the teaching of Stiesdal to use DC current to
energize stator coils in order to create an attractive magnetic force as
complementary to the repulsive force in order to generate rotating torque.”
Ans. 5. However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how either reference describes or suggests creating
an attractive force as complementary to a repulsive force. Appeal Br. 12.
Reply Br. 5.
Furthermore, as pointed out by Appellant on page 5 of the Reply
Brief, claim 27 is not even drawn to an attractive force that is
“complementary” to a repulsive force, but specifies sending a direct
current through a stator coil to create an attractive force between the stator
coil and the rotor when the rotor is in a first position, and sending an
alternating current through the stator coil to create a repulsive force between
the stator coil and the rotor when the rotor is in a second position. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner does not adequately explain how
these additional features of claim 27 are described or suggested in the cited
references. Appeal Br. 12. Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-000743
Application 14/933,333

7
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 4.

DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED