Ex Parte Eichenberg et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 2, 201211584335 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 2, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation