Ex Parte Higuchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2018

13669531 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/669,531
20792 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
11/06/2012
04/11/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dai Higuchi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1424-261 5439
EXAMINER
DESAI, NAISHADH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAI HIGUCHI 1
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MARK NAGUMO, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. ("Shin-Etsu") timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-6, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse
for reasons well-stated by Shin-Etsu.
1 The applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Shin-Etsu
Chemical Co., Ltd. ("Shin-Etsu"). (Appeal Brief, filed 12 April 2016
("Br."), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 30 September 2015 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to electric motors used, for
example, in the compressor of an air conditioner or refrigerator. (Spec. 1,
11. 10-11.) Similar prior art motors are said to comprise a stator 1204
disposed outside of a rotor 110 in a radial direction. (Id. at 11. 12-13.)
Rotor 110 comprises two or more straight slots 112 arranged
circumferentially, with one magnet 113 disposed in each slot. (Id. at 11. 16-
18.) According to the '531 Specification, "it is not easy to manufacture a
magnet which is flat and has a large size." (Id. at 11. 18-19.) The inventor
reports, however, that "the circumferential center of the slot is a region in
which the permeance coefficient of the magnet in the slot is the lowest and
further, [it is] a region that makes a small contribution to a magnetic field
generated by the magnet in the rotor." (Id. at 9, 11. 4--7.)
Therefore, as shown in Figure 1, reproduced on the following page,
the single magnet in each slot 12 in the rotor core 11 is replaced by two
smaller magnets 13a, b, separated by gap 14. The Specification discloses
that when gap 14 is greater than 10% of the circumferential length of the
slot, "the heat demagnetization factor of the magnet is advantageously
decreased, [and] the drop of the no-load inductive voltage of the motor is
relatively smaller as against the reduction ratio of the magnet." (Id. at 11. 14--
3 Application 13/669,531, Motor and compressor, 6 November 2012,
claiming the benefit of an application filed in Japan on 10 November 2011.
We refer to the "'531 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
1 7.) When the gap is greater than 50% of that length, "a reduction amount
of the weight of the magnet is increased, but a drop amount of the no-load
inductive voltage of the motor is also increased." (Id. at 11. 19--21.)
Accordingly, gap 14 is set to between 10% and 50% of the circumferential
length of the slot, and can be filled with a nonmagnetic material 16 (see
Figure 4, not reproduced here) to hold the magnets in place while reducing
the weight of the magnets in the rotor.
{Figure 1 is shown below}
1
~
---------- \"
'20
{Figure 1 shows a top view cross section of a motor}
Other features are identified in representative claim 1, reproduced
infra, by bracketed labels, and other advantages said to arise from this
arrangement are identified by the Specification (Spec. 5, 1. 12, to 6, 1. 22),
but they are not necessary for understanding this appeal.
3
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A motor [1 ], comprising:
a rotor [10] comprising a rotor core [11 ],
two or more first slots [12] arranged in a circumferential
direction of the rotor in the rotor core,
two magnets [13a, b] in a plate shape having
a thickness in a radial direction of the rotor, and
divided and arranged in the circumferential direction in
each of the two or more first slots, and
a spacer [16] for dividing the two magnets; and
a stator [20]
disposed outside of the rotor [10] in the radial direction
with a clearance from the rotor and comprising
a stator core [21] having two or more second slots [22]
wound with one or more winding wires;
wherein an opening of each of the two or more
first slots [12] has a substantially rectangular shape,
wherein two opposite sides of the opening [12] are
perpendicular to a radial direction of the rotor,
wherein the two magnets [13a, b] have
the same magnetic pole of S or N in their radially outer
side and the same magnetic pole ofN or S in their
radially inner side, and
are separated from each other by the spacer [16], by a
distance which is 10% to 50% of a circumferential
length of the slot having the two magnets,
wherein the spacer [16] is a non-magnetic material
that occupies all of a gap [14] between the two
magnets [13a, b ], and
wherein the motor is an interior permanent magnet motor.
(Claims App., Br. 9; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to elements found in Figures 1 and 4 added.)
4
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5' 6 :
A. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of the combined teachings of Honsinger, 7 Olson, 8 and Sakai. 9
Al. Claims 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Honsinger, Olson, Sakai, and
Tomigashi. 10
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Shin-Etsu urges the Examiner erred harmfully in combining the
teachings of Honsinger and Olson because doing so would have changed the
principle of operation of Honsinger's electric motor, and would not have
resulted in the claimed invention.
The Examiner finds (FR 3--4) that Honsinger teaches an electric motor
comprising rotor 16, illustrated in Figure 2, which is reproduced on the
following page. Rotor 16 is comprised of a plurality of thin circular
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 12 October 2016 ("Ans.").
6 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
7 Vernon B. Honsinger, High efficiency, low cost, permanent magnet AC
machine, U.S. Patent No. 4,476,408 (1984).
8 Raymond N. Olson, Rotor for a permanent magnet generator, U.S. Patent
No. 4,486,678 (1984).
9 Kazuto Sakai et al., Reluctance type rotating machine with permanent
magnets, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0047436 Al (2002).
10 Yoshio Tomigashi, Permanent magnet synchronization motor, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2011/0012461 Al (2011).
5
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
laminates 18 that have slots 26, containing magnetic members 28, shaped to
conform to the slots. As in the claimed invention on appeal, the magnets are
each positioned so that the north pole faces radially outward. Steel
bridges 30 are provided between end segments 27 of slots 26 and the
periphery of laminate 18, and between adjacent slots 26.
{Honsinger Figure 2 is reproduced below}
Q
{Honsinger Figure 2 shows an end view of rotor 16}
Thus, the Examiner finds that Honsinger teaches most of the required
structures, but "does not teach wherein the spacer is a non-magnetic material
that occupies all of a gap between the two magnets." (FR 4, 10-11.)
However, the Examiner finds that Olson discloses such spacers 28
separating magnets 18, 19, 20, and 21 in rotor 15 of the permanent magnet
generator shown in Figure 1, reproduced on the following page.
6
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
{Olson Figure 1 is shown below}
{Olson Figure 1: transverse section through a permanent magnet generator}
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to substitute the
spacers 28 disclosed by Olson for the spacers 30 disclosed by Honsinger in
order to "regulate the coercive force of the magnets as needed." (FR 6, 11. 3-
4, citing Olson col. 2, 11. 21-34.)
Shin-Etsu urges (Br. 4--5) that, in the words of Honsinger,
"[b ]ridges 30 are each dimensioned such that during rotor rotation, magnetic
flux [29] from each magnetic member [28] permeates an adjacent
bridge [30] to saturate it." (Honsinger col. 5, 11. 24--26.) Honsinger explains
further that "magnetic member flux 28 complements direct axis flux [along
axis DJ to ensure good synchronous machine performance." (Id. at 11. 9-11.)
7
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
In Shin-Etsu's view, if the magnetically saturable bridges 30 described by
Honsinger were replaced by non-magnetic spacers, as required by the
appealed claims, magnetic flux could not permeate such an adjacent bridge
to saturate it, so the principal of operation of the motor described by
Honsinger would be hindered if not rendered inoperable. (Br., para.
bridging 4--5.) Moreover, Shin-Etsu argues, although Olson describes
spacers 28 made of a non-magnetic material, those spacers have a plurality
of longitudinally extending holes 29, into which are inserted rod-like
elements 30 of a magnetic material. Rods 30 establish "a flux path indicated
by the dashed and dotted line 32 parallel with the external flux path 26, thus
reducing the magnetic field in the external path and the voltage induced in
the stator windings." (Br. 6, 11. 1-7, citing Olson, col. 2, 11. 3-34.) Thus,
Shin-Etsu concludes, Olson does not teach a spacer that is a non-magnetic
material that occupies all of the gap between the two magnets, as required by
claim 1. (J d. at last para.)
The Examiner responds that "[t]he claim limitations do not require the
non-magnetic material to fill all of a gap between the magnets ... Appellant
claims all of a gap ... and does not define how the gap is disposed .... "
(Ans. 7, 11. 1-3 (emphasis omitted).)
We find no merit in this argument. The plain language of the
limitation requires that "the spacer is a non-magnetic material that occupies
all of a gap between the two magnets." We find no room in the recited
spacer, which occupies all of the gap between two magnets, for magnetic
elements such as magnetic bars 30.
8
Appeal2017-002813
Application 13/669,531
The Examiner's further argument that the substitution of Olson's
spacers 28 for Honsinger's spacers 30 would not result in an inferior
apparatus (Ans. 11, 1st full para.) misses Shin-Etsu's main point that
Honsinger is not an appropriate base reference due to the requirement that
the magnets 13a and 13b be separated by a spacer that is entirely non-
magnetic.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding the remaining references
(or further limitations recited in the claims) that cure the deficiencies
discussed supra. Accordingly we reverse the obviousness rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-6 is reversed.
REVERSED
9