14771571 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

TRENCH AUSTRIA GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2020

14771571 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 14/771,571 08/31/2015 Otto HASLEHNER 5029-1404PUS/373611 3040 27799 7590 03/27/2020 COZEN O'CONNOR 277 PARK AVENUE , 20TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10172 EXAMINER BARNES, MALCOLM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2020 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OTTO HASLEHNER Appeal 2019-003176 Application 14/771,571 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–15 and 17. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trench Austria GMBH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003176 Application 14/771,571 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to a winding layer pitch compensation for an air-core reactor which has at least two concentric winding layers spaced apart radially from one another (Spec. 1; Claim 9). Claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: A winding layer pitch compensation for an air-core reactor, which has at least two radially spaced apart concentric winding layers, comprising: a plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets, each of said plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets being for a radial arrangement and being respectively arranged below and above the winding layers and being provided along an edge with at least one receiving slot emanating from the edge; and a plurality of second strip-shaped compensation sheets, each of said plurality of second strip-shaped compensation sheets being provided along another edge with at least one insert slot emanating from the other edge, wherein a plurality of respective compensation sheets of the plurality of second strip-shaped compensation sheets is insertable in a form fitting manner into each receiving slot of a respective first strip-shaped star sheet of the plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets which engages in a form fitting manner into a respective insert slot emanating from the other edge of the plurality of second compensation sheets; wherein slot depths of at least two receiving slots of the plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets are different; and wherein the plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets do not reach into a central air space of the air-core reactor when installed. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 9–12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Riggins (US 3,696,315 issued Oct. 3, 1972) in view of Schneider-Muntau et al. (US 4,270,112 issued May 26, 1981, hereinafter “Schneider”), and Reisinger et al. (US Appeal 2019-003176 Application 14/771,571 3 2011/0043320 Al published Feb. 24, 2011, hereinafter “Reisinger”). 2. Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Riggins in view of Schneider, Reisinger, and Dudley et al. (US 5,225,802 issued July 6, 1993, hereinafter “Dudley”). 3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Riggins in view of Schneider, Reisinger, and Trench (US 3,264,590 issued Aug. 2, 1966). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of claim 9 over Riggins in view of Schneider, and Reisinger are located on pages 4 to 6 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Riggins, Schneider and Reisinger fail to teach “wherein the plurality of first strip-shaped star sheets do not reach into a central air space of the air-core reactor when installed” (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant argues that Reisinger shows star-type holders extending into the internal space of the illustrated air-core reactor (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant contends that modifying Riggins to remove the star-shaped strip in the central air space would result in eliminating the anchor points provided by the plates for the strain members (Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 4). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 6). We agree. Riggins teaches first strip-shaped star sheets (i.e., radial bars 24) in an air-core reactor (col. 2, ll. 63–68). Riggins teaches that the radial bars 24 are conductive bars and they provide “structural support as well as electrical Appeal 2019-003176 Application 14/771,571 4 continuity from the various coil layers 14–19 to terminals proximate to the hub 26 (col. 2, ll. 63–68, col. 3, ll. 1–2). Riggins teaches that the radial bars electrically connect the coils with terminals located at the center hub 26. The Examiner’s proposed modification would replace the strip-shaped star supports in Riggins with the holding arms 41 of Schneider (Final Act. 2, 6). The Examiner’s reason for the modification is “to hold together the winding layers by the plurality of star-type holders” (Final Act. 6). Riggins and Reisinger’s strip-shaped star members already provide that function to air- core reactors, so it is not clear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Schneider’s holding members 41 absent hindsight. Also, Riggins radial bars 24 provide structural strength and electrical connectivity for the central mounted terminals and the coils (col. 2, ll. 63– 68, col. 3, ll. 1–2). Modifying Riggins to have Schneider’s holding arms 41 which do not extend into the central air space region would frustrate that functionality in Riggins as argued by Appellant (Reply Br. 5–6). The Examiner does not explain how the modification would have been made while retaining the desired electrical connectivity in Riggins or structure as in Reisinger by using Schneider’s holding members 41 instead in lieu of Riggins’ and Reisinger’s strip-shaped star members. On this record, Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Riggins in view of Schneider and Reisinger. The § 103 rejections of claims 13 and 15 over Riggins in view of Schneider, Reisinger, and Dudley, and claim 14 over Riggins in view of Schneider, Reisinger and Trench are faulty for the same reasons discussed above. We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. Appeal 2019-003176 Application 14/771,571 5 CONCLUSION In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed 9-12, 17 103 Riggins, Schneider, Reisinger 9–12, 17 13, 15 103 Riggins, Schneider, Reisinger, Dudley 13, 15 14 103 Riggins, Schneider, Reisinger, Trench 14 Overall Outcome 9–15, 17