Yi Li et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14262783 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
14/262,783 04/27/2014 Yi Li 8715USC01 2908
15815 7590 09/27/2019
The Mason Group Patent Specialists LLC
24610 Kingsland Blvd
Katy, TX 77494
EXAMINER
DUDA, RINA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
docketing@nolteip.com
twhite@themasongroup.net
vdavis@nolteip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YI LI, JONATHAN RICHARD MEYER,
RUPERT PAUL KIRBY, and TIMOTHY JOHN MARTIN

Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 17.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Protean
Electric Limited. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 14. Ans. 2. In
addition, the Examiner states that remaining pending claims 16, 18, and 19
are not subject to rejection, but are objected to as being dependent upon a
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

2
We AFFIRM.3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an electric motor comprising a plurality of
coil sets arranged to produce a magnetic field, each coil set comprising a
plurality of coil subsets, wherein the motor also comprises a plurality of
control devices, each of which is coupled to and controls current in a
respective plurality of coil subsets of the coil sets to generate a magnetic
field in each coil subset to have a substantially different magnetic phase to
the other one or more coil subsets in the coil set. Spec. 4:10–19. Appellant
discloses that this arrangement allows an electric motor to have a number of
sub-motors that can operate independently of each other, via their respective
control device, whereby the current flow in coil subsets of one coil set is
independent of the current flow of another coil set, such that the coils of
each coil subset can have a larger number of turns than for an equivalent
motor in which all the respective coil subsets are connected in series as a
single motor. Id. at 4:21–30. According to Appellant, the increased number
of turns in each coil increases the overall motor inductance, allowing lower
currents to be used in the coils of each subset, and smaller switching devices
with faster switching speeds and lower switching losses. Id. at 4:30–36.

rejected base claim. Non-Final Act. 1, 7. Therefore, these claims are not
before us on appeal.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Apr. 27, 2014, the
Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated Oct. 6, 2017,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed Apr. 6, 2018, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) dated June 14, 2018.
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

3
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Paragraphing has been
added to facilitate review.
1. An electric motor comprising
a stator having two coil sets arranged to produce a
magnetic field of the motor,
each coil set comprising a plurality of coil sub-sets,
wherein the two coil sets are without an electrical
connection therebetween so that current flow in the coil sub-
sets of one coil set is independent of current flow in the coil
sub-sets of the other coil set; and
first and second control devices, wherein the first
control device is coupled to the plurality of coil sub-sets for
the first coil set and the second control device is coupled to
the plurality of coil sub-sets for the second coil set,
wherein each control device includes a plurality of
inverter switches and control logic for controlling the
operation of the plurality of inverter switches for controlling
current in the respective plurality of coil sub-sets to generate
a magnetic field in each coil sub-set to have a substantially
different magnetic phase to the other one or more coil sub-
sets in the respective coil set,
wherein the first control device and the second control
device are mounted on the stator adjacent to the respective
plurality of coil sub-sets,
wherein the first control device and second control
device are coupled via a communication interface to allow
the first control device and the second control device to
communicate.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Ito US 6,676,400 B2 Jan. 13, 2004
Maslov et al. (“Maslov”) US 2004/0021437 A1 Feb. 5, 2004
Peterson et al. (“Peterson”) US 2008/0174213 A1 July 24, 2008

Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

4
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 5, and 7–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ito in view of Peterson;
2. Claims 4, 6, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ito in view of Peterson, and further in view of Maslov.

ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
As stated above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, and 7–13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito in view of Peterson.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, and the appeal record before us, we determine that
Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejection for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and the Non-Final Office Action. We offer the
following for emphasis only.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Ito teaches a motor 51 having two sets of
windings (coil sets), each set of windings comprising a plurality of
independently controlled coils (coil subsets), and first and second control
devices, wherein the first control device including first inverter 52 and
controller 54 is connected to a first set of coils and the second control device
including second inverter 53 and controller 55 is connected to a second set
of coils. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Ito teaches that
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

5
each controller controls operation of a plurality of switches in its respective
inverter, wherein the control devices are coupled via communication wires
to allow communication, for example, by using instruction signal S54. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Ito fails to teach that the control devices
are mounted on the stator adjacent to their respective plurality of coil
subsets. Id. For this feature, the Examiner finds that Peterson teaches an
integrated motor and controller assembly comprising an electric motor
having stator 26 including a plurality of windings (coils), rotor 32, and
motor controller 14 having housing 38 mounted on motor housing 28. Id. at
5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
mounted Ito’s controllers onto the motor stator in order to obtain a more
compact structure that is easy to assemble and transport. Id.
Appellant argues that the combination of Ito and Peterson fails to
teach that each control device: 1) is mounted on the stator adjacent to the
respective plurality of coil subsets; and 2) controls current in the respective
plurality of coil subsets to generate a magnetic field in each coil subset to
have a substantially different magnetic phase to the other one or more coil
subsets in the respective coil set. Br. 10. With regard to the first feature
above, Appellant asserts that Peterson discloses an integrated assembly 10
having a single motor controller 14 mounted to an electric motor 12. Id. at
11. Appellant also contends that Peterson’s controller is not mounted on the
stator adjacent to coil subsets as required in claim 1. Id. Appellant asserts
that Peterson’s motor end housing 28 is attached between controller housing
38 and stator 26, and that housing 38 includes mounting portion 70 for
engaging a base portion 46 of motor housing 28, such that motor housing 28
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

6
prevents motor controller 14 from being mounted onto stator 26 adjacent any
coils that might be contained within the stator. Id.
We do not find Appellant’s first argument persuasive of reversible
error. As the Examiner responds (Ans. 4), claim 1 does not require that the
control devices be directly mounted on the stator without any other structural
element connected between the control devices and the stator. Peterson,
Figure 2, shows that control device housing 38 is mounted on stator 26 via
housing 28. Peterson, Fig. 2. Appellant does not contest or otherwise
address this claim interpretation. In addition, although Peterson does not
teach plural control devices, the Examiner did not rely on Peterson for this
feature. Instead, the Examiner found, and Appellant does not dispute, that
Ito teaches a plurality of motor coil control devices.
With regard to their second argument, Appellant contends that
Peterson fails to disclose any coils at all and Ito fails to describe how the
windings or coils, with each and every coil in the set of coils having a
parallel winding in the same direction, can be used to generate magnetic
fields in the coil subsets having substantially different magnetic phases to
each other. Br. 12. Appellant asserts that Figure 9 depicts each coil set
including three coil subsets, 74A, 74B, 74C, that are alternately wound such
that each coil subset produces a magnetic field which is anti-parallel with its
adjacent coil subsets for a given direction of current flow. Id. Appellant
contends that Ito fails to describe how the parallel windings in the same
direction can be used to generate substantially different magnetic phases in
the coils of the coil subsets. Id. at 13.
We do not find Appellant’s second argument persuasive of reversible
error. We first note that Appellant discloses that coils 74A, 74B, 74C are
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

7
part of a single coil subset, and are not, as Appellant asserts, three individual
coil subsets. See Spec. 13:33–14:29. Also, we note that the direction of the
magnetic fields of coils 74A, 74C are the same which, if these coils were
individual coil subsets, would appear to contradict the claim recitation that
the magnetic field of each coil subset has a substantially different magnetic
phase to the other coils of the subset. Thirdly, we note that these coils are
disclosed to have different magnetic field direction to their adjacent coils in
the same subset, which is not the same as the claim recitation that the coil
subsets have a different magnetic phase to other subsets in a respective coil
set. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting
appellant’s nonobviousness argument as based on limitation not recited in
claim); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they
are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 5–6), Ito teaches an electric
motor having two sets of three-phase windings U1/V1/W1, U2/V2/W2,
wherein each set of windings provides a phase angle shift of 120˚, and the
control devises output control signals to generate three different phases in
the respective windings of each coil set. Thus, Ito’s windings U1,V1,W1 are
each coil subsets of coil set U1/V1/W1 and each have a different magnetic
phase to the other coil subsets in this coil set. The Examiner, therefore,
correctly found that Ito teaches the limitation that each control device
includes a plurality of inverter switches and control logic for controlling the
operation of the plurality of inverter switches for controlling current in the
respective plurality of coil sub-sets to generate a magnetic field in each coil
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

8
sub-set to have a substantially different magnetic phase to the other one or
more coil sub-sets in the respective coil set.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7–13
Appellant merely relies on the dependence of each claim on the
limitations of claim 1, and does not separately advance any argument as to
any of these claims. Br. 14. Accordingly, for the same reasons given above,
we likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5,
and 7–13.
Rejection 2
As to the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ito in view of Peterson, and further in view of Maslov,
Appellant merely relies on the dependence of each claim subject to this
rejection on the limitations of claim 1, and does not otherwise separately
argue against this rejection. Br. 15. Accordingly, for the same reasons
given above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 4, 6, and 17.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Non-Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1–3, 5, and 7–13 as
unpatentable over Ito in view of Peterson, and claims 4, 6, and 13 as
unpatentable over Ito in view of Peterson and Maslov is affirmed.
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).
Appeal 2018-009065
Application 14/262,783

9

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7–13 § 103(a); Ito,
Peterson
1–3, 5, 7–13
4, 6, 17 § 103(a); Ito,
Peterson, Maslov
4, 6, 17
Overall Outcome 1–13, 17

AFFIRMED