VALEO EQUIPEMENTS ELECTRIQUES MOTEUR

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 8, 2021

2020002808 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2021)

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.
15/104,802 06/15/2016 Hugues GERVAIS 01200.1074 9019
28410 7590 06/08/2021
BERENATO & WHITE, LLC
6550 ROCK SPRING DRIVE
SUITE 240
BETHESDA, MD 20817
EXAMINER
MATES, ROBERT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2021 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):
uspto.filings@bw-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HUGUES GERVAIS and MICHAEL HANQUEZ
____________

Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, 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 1–9 and 11–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 “VALEO
EQUIPEMENTS ELECTRIQUES MOTEUR.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

2
The invention relates to an interconnector that improves the
performance of a stator in connecting the phases of the polyphase electrical
machine. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 6, 18. The Specification describes that the inventive
interconnector distributes the inputs and the outputs of the coils in the stator
on both sides of the body of the stator, leaving more space for the welding
operations. Spec. ¶ 45. Claim 1 illustrates the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. An interconnector (22) for a stator (11) of a polyphase
rotary electrical machine, the stator (11) comprising a stator
body (12) supporting a winding including a plurality of coils
(19), each of the coils (19) having input (191) and output (192)
ends, the interconnector (22) comprising:

a first part (22a) comprising at least three phase
conductors (32-34) each having an annular form, the at least
three phase conductors (32-34) stacked axially on one another
and insulated electrically against one another; and

a second part (22b) comprising at least one neutral
conductor (31) having an annular form and insulated
electrically;

the first part (22a) and the second part (22b) mounted on
axially opposite sides of the stator body (12), each of the at
least three annular phase conductors (32-34) of the first part
(22a) and the at least one annular neutral conductor (31) of the
second part (22b) provided on an inner periphery thereof with
lugs (36) projecting towards an interior of the interconnector
(22) for welding respectively of the input ends (191) and the
output ends (192) of the coils.

Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated February 19, 2019:
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

3
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–16, 18, and 20 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hashimoto (JP 2008-312276 A,
published December 25, 2008),2 Otsuji (US 2008/0242124 A1, published
October 2, 2008), and Inoue (WO 2012/029706 Al, published March 8,
2012).3

II. Claims 3, 17, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hashimoto, Otsuji, Inoue, and Haydock (US 6,271,608
B1, issued August 7, 2001).

III. Claims 6 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hashimoto, Otsuji, Inoue, and Kinoshita (US 2007/0273221, published
November 29, 2007).

IV. Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hashimoto, Otsuji, Inoue, and Yamaguchi (US 2010/0096943 Al, published
April 22, 2010).

Appellant presents arguments only for independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 4. Appellant does not present separate arguments for the
rejections of the remaining claims. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 4 as
representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal as to all
grounds of rejections based on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 4.

2 Appellant brought to our attention a translation of the primary reference to
Hashimoto that appears to be more accurate than the translation the
Examiner relies upon in the Final Action. Specifically, Appellant directs us
to worldwide.espacenet.com (European Patent Office) for access to this
translation. Reply Br. 3. This particular translation was made of record by
Appellant on June 15, 2016. Because Appellant relies on this version of the
translation to refute the Examiner’s reasoning on certain issues (Appeal Br.
3–4), we also rely on this translation for the purposes of this opinion.
3 The Examiner relies on an English machine translation of Inoue dated
August 1, 2018.
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

4
OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–9 and
11–20 based on the fact-finding and the reasons the Examiner provides. We
add the following.

Independent claim 1
Claim 1 recites an interconnector for a stator of a polyphase rotary
electrical machine having (1) a first part comprising at least three phase
conductors with each conductor having an annular form and with at least
three phase conductors stacked axially on one another and (2) a second part
comprising at least one neutral conductor having an annular form.
The Examiner finds that Hashimoto discloses an interconnector
comprising a first part having at least three annular phase conductors stacked
radially. Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 4; Hashimoto Figures 5, 8, 12, ¶¶ 42. The
Examiner also finds that Hashimoto teaches a second part comprising at
least one conductor having an annular form and that Hashimoto’s first and
second parts are mounted on axially opposite sides of a stator body. Final
Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Hashimoto does not teach (1) stacking the
three phase annular conductors axially and (2) the at least one conductor of
the second part as a neutral conductor. Id. at 8. Regarding difference (1),
the Examiner finds Otsuji discloses it was known to arrange conductors by
stacking them axially to form a structure of a busbar unit that supplies
current to an armature of a motor. Final Act. 8; Otsuji Figure 11, ¶¶ 2, 4,
60–61. Regarding difference (2), the Examiner finds Inoue describes use of
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

5
a neutral conductor in a three phase stator that is configured so that surfaces
of its connection portions are in close proximity to planar surfaces of the coil
star portions of conductor wires. Final Act. 8; Inoue ¶¶ 49–54. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Hashimoto’s interconnector by arranging
Hashimoto’s conductors axially instead of radially, as Otsuji teaches, and by
providing a neutral conductor to Hashimoto’s stator, as Inoue teaches, to
arrive at the claimed invention. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant argues that Hashimoto does not disclose busbars in annular
form as the Examiner contends. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, the
claim term “annular form,” when read in light of the Specification and
Application Figures 3–5, refers to a circular form as an example. Appeal
Br. 8; Spec. ¶¶ 20, 21, 29. That is, Appellant contends that the claimed
conductors are “closed type” conductors, whereas Hashimoto discloses
busbars (conductors) of an “open type” with each comprising a supply
terminal and a coil connection terminal spaced from the supply terminal.
Appeal Br. 8; see Hashimoto Figures 4 and 8. Appellant further contends
that Hashimoto specifically discloses that “the busbars 51 to 53 are not
annular and are of an open type provided with openings, material costs can
be reduced as compared with the case where each of the busbars 51 to 53 is
of a closed type.” Reply Br. 3–4; Hashimoto ¶ 42.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, when read as a whole,
Hashimoto describes an alternate embodiment in which the phase conductors
are made more circular. Ans. 4. In fact, Hashimoto expressly discloses that
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

6
“[e]ach bus bar 51 to 54 shown in the figure has a polygonal shape, but each
may have a circular shape.” Hashimoto ¶ 50. Thus, Hashimoto’s disclosure
appears to encompass the use of “open type,” as well as “closed type”
conductors. While Hashimoto focuses on describing an embodiment having
“open type” conductors, this appears to be a preferred embodiment. It is
well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it discloses and
not merely the preferred embodiments as Appellant suggests. See Merck &
Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered.” (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))); In
re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (explaining that a prior
art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples). Appellant has not
explained adequately why Hashimoto’s preferred embodiment limits the
broader disclosure of using circular conductors.
Appellant argues Otsuji does not disclose annular busbars but, instead,
discloses a plurality of busbars arranged in an axial direction that may be
embedded in a busbar holder by insertion molding. Appeal Br. 7; Otsuji
¶¶ 60–61. Appellant further contends that Otsuji’s Figures 2, 3, and 7 show
that the busbars are approximately semi-circular and not annular. Appeal
Br. 7–8. Thus, Appellant asserts the combination of Hashimoto and Otsuji
would result in an interconnector lacking the annular phase conductors. Id.
at 8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Otsuji was cited to teach that
it is known to arrange busbars axially to form a busbar unit for a motor.
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

7
Ans. 4. In fact, Otsuji discloses that busbars in a busbar unit can be arranged
radially or axially. Otsuji Figures 5 (radial orientation), 11 (axial
orientation), ¶¶ 37, 60–61. Thus, Otsuji teaches the axial arrangement of
busbars as a well-known alternative to the radial arrangement of busbars.
Given this disclosure, Appellant fails to explain why one skilled in the art,
using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable
rearranging Hashimoto’s conductors axially and still reasonably expect that
such an arrangement would be suitable for Hashimoto’s purposes. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of
one of ordinary skill in the art); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). While Appellant contends that Otsuji does not
disclose “closed type” conductors, Appellant fails to direct us to any
disclosure of Otsuji that expressly limits axial arrangement of conductors to
only “open type” conductors.
Appellant next argues Inoue does not disclose at least three phase
conductors (or busbars) each having an annular form nor the claimed
connector for a stator of a rotary electrical machine comprising the phase
conductors (or busbars) each having an annular form. Appeal Br. 9.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Inoue teaches that it was
known to use a neutral conductor in combination with a connector in a
stator. Ans. 5. We note that the Specification also acknowledges it was
known to use neutral conductors in stators. Spec. ¶ 32 (citing to EP 0 831
580 A2). While Appellant contends that Inoue’s connector is not a three
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

8
phase connector (Reply Br. 6–7), Appellant fails to explain why a specific
type of connector would lead one skilled in the art away from using a neutral
connector in a stator given that the prior art shows it is common to do so.
Moreover, busbar conductor 54 in Hashimoto’s Figure 11 comprises
coil connections (54c) spaced closely and equally from each other compared
to the coil connections of busbar conductors 51–53 in Hashimoto’s Figures
10 and 12 (for example, connector 53c coil connections). Furthermore,
Hashimoto’s busbar conductor/coil connections shown in Figure 11 appear
similar in structure to neutral conductor (28) shown in Inoue’s Figure 3 in
that they both provide coil connections (54c, 28a) in similar arrangement
(spaced closely and equally from each other). One skilled in the art would
have reasonably inferred from these disclosures that Hashimoto’s busbar
conductor 54 functions as a neutral connector or would have been capable of
functioning as such. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] 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.”); see
also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that a
reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom).

Claim 4
Claim 4 recites that the first part of the interconnector comprises more
than three annular phase conductors.
Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

9
The Examiner finds Otsuji teaches an interconnector can comprise
more than three phase conductors. Final Act. 9; Otsuji Figure 11; ¶¶ 60, 62.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments with respect to the
rejection of claim 4 (Appeal Br. 10–11), but find them unpersuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
As the Examiner notes, Otsuji discloses “the number of the busbars
and/or the number of the wire connector portions can be changed based on
the numbers of the phases and the slots of the brush less motor.” Ans. 5;
Otsuji ¶ 62. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s reasoning in the
Reply Brief. Therefore, we discern no error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that that it would have been obvious to modify Hashimoto’s interconnector
to comprise more than three annular phase conductors. See In re Harza, 274
F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of
parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is
produced, and we are of the opinion that such is not the case here.”). Absent
a showing of new or unexpected results, Appellant has not adequately
explained why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
modifying Hashimoto’s interconnector to provide more than three annular
phase conductors if so desired.
Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for
the reasons the Examiner presents.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1–9 and 11–20 for the reasons the Examiner presents and those we give
above.

Appeal 2020-002808
Application 15/104,802

10
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
9, 12–16,
18, 20
103 Hashimoto, Otsuji,
Inoue
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
9, 12–16,
18, 20

3, 17, 19 103 Hashimoto, Otsuji,
Inoue, Haydock
3, 17, 19
6, 7 103 Hashimoto, Otsuji,
Inoue, Kinoshita
6, 7
11 103 Hashimoto, Otsuji,
Inoue, Yamaguchi
11
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–20

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED