Ex Parte Eichenberg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 2, 2012

11584335 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/584,335 10/20/2006 Andreas Eichenberg MB 591 3942
27956 7590 02/02/2012
KLAUS J. BACH
4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE
MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668
EXAMINER
ESHETE, ZELALEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANDREAS EICHENBERG, MATTHIAS GREGOR
and JENS MEINTSCHEL
________________

Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13. The Examiner has allowed claim 16
and has objected to claims 7-8, 12, 14 and 15 (Ans. 2). Claim 2 has been
cancelled (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter pertains to a hysteresis brake device
movable along an electromagnet’s pole structure. There are at least two
offset magnetic field effect regions formed in the hysteresis device by the
electromagnet’s pole structure. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below:

1. A valve operating control device with a hysteresis brake (10)
for an internal combust ion engine, said hysteresis brake
including an electromagnet with a pole structure (33), a
hysteresis device (25b, 25c) rotatably supported about an axis
of rotation (30) so as to be movable along a pole structure (33)
of an electromagnet forming a magnetic field effect region (31)
in the hysteresis device (25b, 25c) along the pole structure (33),
said hysteresis device (25b, 25c) being provided with, offset in
at least one of the axial and the radial directions, at least two
magnetic field effect regions (31, 32) established by a common
stator pole structure (33).

Reference Relied on by the Examiner
Voith DE 9205396.3 July 23, 1992

Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335

3
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Voith (Ans. 3).

ISSUE
Does Voith anticipate the claimed hysteresis brake device having at
least two offset magnetic field effect regions formed in the hysteresis device
by an electromagnet’s pole structure?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13 as a group (App. Br. 4-6).
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for review (see 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)) with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1.
Claim 1 requires that the “at least two magnetic field effect regions
(31, 32)” be “offset in at least one of the axial and the radial directions.”
The Examiner finds that Voith discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and
specifically, that Voith discloses an hysteresis device having multiple field
effect regions acting on it that are “offset in at least one of the axial and the
radial directions” (Ans. 3 and 6). Appellants contend that “[n]o such
structure is disclosed in the cited reference” because the invention is
provided with magnetic field effect regions established by each stator pole
structure “which are offset or spaced from each other” and which are also
Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335

4
“disposed opposite the space between two adjacent poles” located on the
opposite side of the rotor1 (App. Br. 5-6).
The Examiner correctly notes that claim 1 does not employ the term
“opposite” (Ans. 6). Instead, claim 1 only employs the term “offset” and
“offset” is not expressly defined in Appellants’ Specification. However,
statements in Appellants’ Specification that do not provide an express
definition of a claim term can nevertheless help determine the meaning of
that term (In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming
the Board’s construction of a claim term as “reasonable in view of the
written description and how the written description would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art”). Here, Appellants’ Specification employs
“offset” with respect to each of Figures 1-6; for example, Figures 1-3 are
described as disclosing stator parts (or their poles) as being “offset,” while
Figures 4-6 are described as disclosing two strips or disks as being “offset”
(Spec. 6:10-12, 7:25-26, 8:10-11, 4:7, 4:11 and 4:24-25). Figures 1c, 2 and
3 illustrate a staggered gap between adjacent pole components extending in
two (or more) dimensions while Figures 4-6 disclose only a single-
dimensional gap between adjacent strips2. The commonality of Appellants’
usage, as reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is the
existence of a gap extending in at least a single direction.
The Examiner specifically references Figs. 2 and 3 of Voith as
disclosing poles (and hence magnetic field effect regions) which are radially
“offset” in one figure and axially “offset” in the other (Ans. 6). The

1 Regarding Appellants’ “opposite” pole structure, Appellants provide
guidance to “see Fig. 1c” (App. Br. 6). Fig. 1c is an illustration of “a
conventional hysteresis brake (b and c)” (Spec. 5:5-10).
2 The illustrated axis 30 is one axis of a cylindrical coordinate system.
Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335

5
Examiner’s usage of this term is consistent with Appellants’ usage discussed
supra. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Voith discloses a
hysteresis device having multiple field effect regions acting on it that are
“offset in at least one of the axial and the radial directions” as claimed (Ans.
3 and 6).
Appellants further contend that Voith does not disclose a hysteresis
brake because Voith is energized by a DC current and not an AC current
(App. Br. 5, see also Reply Br. 1). The contention is not persuasive for
several reasons. First, Voith expressly addresses a “hysteresis brake” (Voith
2:1-3). Second, the Examiner states (and we agree) that “[n]o where in the
claim is it recited that the energizing current is AC current” (Ans. 5). Third,
the Wikipedia article entered into evidence does not limit hysteresis brakes
to only AC current (Evidence Appd’x, item 2). Fourth, Appellants
acknowledge that for hysteresis to occur, the electric current generating the
magnetic field “needs to be an AC or for example in (sic.) interrupted DC
current” (Reply Br. 2). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
contention.

CONCLUSION
Based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13 as being anticipated by Voith.
Voith anticipates the claimed hysteresis brake device having at least
two offset magnetic field effect regions formed in the hysteresis device by
an electromagnet’s pole structure.

Appeal 2010-002403
Application 11/584,335

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13 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).

AFFIRMED

MP