Ex Parte Losch et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2013

11522246 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WOLFGANG LOSCH and ANDRE MUELLER
____________________

Appeal 2011-004111
Application 11/522,246
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004111
Application 11/522,246

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 17-21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a vacuum pump system and a
method of using such a system. Claims 17 and 20 are independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 17, reformatted and reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
17. A vacuum pump system, comprising
a vacuum pump including a brushless,
multiphase, synchronous motor with a permanently
magnetically excited rotor, and pump type
recognition means; and
a control unit for controlling the vacuum
pump and including
a final stage for controlling the motor,
means for determining a rotational
speed of the motor,
a drive microcontroller connectable
with the rotational speed determining means
for controlling the final stage in accordance
with the rotational speed of the motor and
for turning off the final stage in case the

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed
September 15, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 17, 2010), and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 8, 2010), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 10, 2010).

Appeal 2011-004111
Application 11/522,246

3
rotational speed of the motor exceeds a
maximum allowable speed of the motor for
a type of the vacuum pump forming part of
the vacuum pump system, and
a further microcontroller connectable
with the pump type recognition means for
determining the maximum allowable speed
of the motor for the type of the pump
forming part of the vacuum system and
connectable with the drive microcontroller
for communicating the maximum allowable
speed to the drive microcontroller.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Iguchi (JP 2004-132179 A, pub. Apr. 30, 2004); and
claims 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iguchi in view of Desai (US 6,449,567 B1, iss. Sep. 10,
2002).
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 17, the Examiner rejects the claim
as anticipated by Iguchi. Specifically, the Examiner states that overspeed
setting detector 6 of Iguchi teaches the claimed limitations of
a further microcontroller connectable with
the pump type recognition means for determining
the maximum allowable speed of the motor for the
type of the pump forming part of the vacuum
system and connectable with the drive
microcontroller for communicating the maximum
allowable speed to the drive microcontroller
Appeal 2011-004111
Application 11/522,246

4
(Ans. 4). In particular, the Examiner states that paragraphs [0013] to [0015]
of the English-language translation of Iguchi teach that the overspeed setting
detector 6 “determin[es] the maximum allowable speed of the motor for the
type of the pump forming part of the vacuum system” and “communicat[es]
the maximum allowable speed to the drive microcontroller” as claimed (id.)
We agree with Appellants, however, that these portions of Iguchi do not
teach that the overspeed setting detector 6 determines or communicates the
maximum allowable speed as required by claim 17 (App. Br. 10-12, Reply
Br. 4). As Appellants point out, paragraphs [0011] and [0013] of the
English-language translation of Iguchi appear to describe the manual setting,
rather than a determination, of the maximum speed. Further, none of
paragraphs [0013] to [0015] describes the overspeed setting detector 6
determining or communicating the maximum speed. For these reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17.
Independent claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 17. Thus,
we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 20.
Remaining claims 18, 19, and 21 depend from independent claims 17
and 20. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-21 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls