Ex parte Baronosky et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 1998

08020232 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 19, 1993. According1
to the appellants this application is a continuation of
Application 07/722,349, filed June 27, 1991.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RICHARD A. BARONOSKY
PETER SENAK JR. and
STEVEN H. WOLLINS
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,2321
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-17. Claim 22 has
been allowed. Claims 18-20, 23 and 24 have been indicated as
containing allowable subject matter. Claims 2 and 21 have been
cancelled.
The disclosed invention pertains to a variable reluctance
electric motor having a stator and a rotor. More particularly,
the stator has a plurality of magnetic poles formed therein. The
rotor also has a plurality of magnetic poles and is positioned
for rotation within the stator. Coils of foil wire are disposed
about each of the stator poles which are selectively energized to
generate electromagnetic fields for controlling the motor.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A variable reluctance electric motor comprising:
a stator formed from a magnetic material, said stator
being generally hollow and cylindrical in shape and having an
inner surface, said stator having a plurality of inwardly
extending poles formed thereon which extend longitudinally
throughout said inner surface;
a rotor formed from a magnetic material, said rotor being
generally cylindrical in shape and having an outer surface, said
rotor having a plurality of outwardly extending poles formed
thereon which extend longitudinally throughout said outer
surface;
means for supporting said rotor for rotation within said
stator; and
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
3
a coil of foil wire disposed about each of said stator
poles, said coils adapted to be connected to a control circuit
for selectively passing electrical current therethrough so as to
cause each of said coils to generate an electromagnetic field,
said electromagnetic fields selectively attracting said rotor
poles toward said stator poles so as to cause said rotor to
rotate relative to said stator.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Finegold 4,446,393 May 01, 1984
Obradovic 4,777,419 Oct. 11, 1988
Newberg 4,972,113 Nov. 20, 1990
Shirakawa 4,982,125 Jan. 01, 1991
Konecny 5,015,939 May 14, 1991
Gaser et al. (Gaser) 5,041,749 Aug. 20, 1991
(filed Apr. 19, 1990)
Sakurai et al. (Sakurai) 64-43044 Feb. 15, 1989
(Japanese Patent Application)
The admitted prior art in the application.

Claims 1 and 3-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-15 is based on the
teachings of Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny or the
admitted prior art. The rejection of claims 5 and 6 is based on
any of the above combinations and further in view of Newberg.
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 is based on any of the
combinations applied against claim 1 and further in view of the
teachings of Shirakawa, Gaser or Sakurai.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
4
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1, 3-6 and 9-17. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner is under a burden to
make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden is
met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
5
whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner has pointed out the teachings of each of the
applied references, has pointed out the perceived differences
between the applied prior art and the claimed invention, and has
reasonably indicated how and why the applied prior art would have
been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner has, therefore, at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The burden is,
therefore, upon appellants to come forward with evidence or
arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner's prima facie
case of obviousness. Appellants have presented several arguments
in response to the examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider
obviousness based upon the totality of the evidence and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
1. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and
7-15 as unpatentable over the teachings
of Finegold in view of Obradovic,
Konecny or the admitted prior art.
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
6
Finegold is directed to a dynamoelectric field assembly
for use in the starter motor of an automobile. Finegold teaches
a stator and rotor having magnetic pole pieces. The pole pieces
of Finegold’s stator are surrounded by coils of strapping or foil
wire. The motor of Finegold is not a variable reluctance motor.
Each of Obradovic, Konecny and the admitted prior art teaches a
conventional variable reluctance electric motor. Such a motor is
described as having a stator and a rotor with magnetic pole
pieces. The coils around the stator pole pieces of these motors
are presumed to be formed from conventional conductive wire
having a circular cross section. Such wire does not meet the
definition of foil wire. The coils in Obradovic, Konecny and the
admitted prior art are selectively and independently controlled
to cause movement of the rotor relative to the stator. It is the
position of the examiner that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use the strapping or foil wire of Finegold with the
variable reluctance motors of Obradovic, Konecny or the admitted
prior art [answer, pages 3-4].
With respect to claim 1, appellants argue that the
Finegold structure is so different from the structures disclosed
in the other references that a person having ordinary skill in
the art would not have considered them in combination [brief,
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
7
page 6]. As noted above, Finegold teaches the details of a
starter motor for an automobile. The respective coils on the
stator of Finegold’s motor are connected to each other in series
so that an applied current will flow through the coils in
sequence. The variable reluctance motors of Obradovic, Konecny
and the admitted prior art have the various stator coils
unconnected to each other so that a current can be selectively
generated through any one of the coils. It is appellants’
position that the control of an automobile starter motor is so
different from the control of a variable reluctance motor that
the artisan would not consider using Finegold’s strapping or foil
wire for the coils in Obradovic, Konecny or the admitted prior
art.
When the breadth of claim 1 is considered, we agree with
the examiner that the invention recited therein would have been
obvious to the artisan within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
do not agree with appellants’ assertion that there is no basis to
combine the teachings of the applied references. All the
references relate to the control of movement of a rotor with
respect to a stator. All the references control this movement by
the generation of electromagnetic fields in coils surrounding the
pole pieces of the stator. The manner in which the coils are
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
8
interconnected determines the type of control only, and does not
affect the teachings of generating electromagnetic fields by
applying current through a coil surrounding a pole piece of the
stator. The person skilled in the art of variable reluctance
motors would be expected to be familiar with other types of
motors which also use magnetic stators and rotors to cause
movement of the rotor with respect to the stator.
Appellants argue that if the series connected strapping
or foil wire of Finegold were to be placed into the motors of
Obradovic, Konecny or the admitted prior art, such motors would
not operate as variable reluctance motors any longer [brief, page
7]. The problem with this argument is that it presumes that the
artisan has no knowledge whatsoever. The artisan would have
known that the coils of a variable reluctance motor must be
unconnected as taught by each of Obradovic, Konecny and the
admitted prior art. Therefore, the artisan would not retain the
series connection of Finegold if the coils were intended for use
in a variable reluctance motor.
The question as we see it is whether the artisan would
have found it obvious to replace each of the coils of the
variable reluctance motors with an individual coil made of
strapping or foil wire as taught by Finegold. Appellants argue
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
9
that the obviousness of such a replacement is nothing more than a
bald conclusion by the examiner [brief, page 8]. However, since
the only purpose of the stator coil is to generate an
electromagnetic field between the stator and the rotor, and since
Finegold clearly teaches that a coil of strapping or foil wire
will generate such a field, we are of the view that the artisan
would have found it obvious to broadly make the coils for a
variable reluctance motor out of strapping or foil wire.
For all the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 3, 4 and 14
are grouped with claim 1 so that we also sustain the rejection of
these claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, appellants argue that
there is no suggestion in any of the applied references of the
stator flats as recited in these claims [brief, page 10]. The
examiner responds that Finegold clearly shows foil wire having
flats [answer, page 6]. We see no relevance of the examiner’s
statement to the stator flats as recited in these claims.
Although these claims may be viewed as only slightly modifying
the invention of claim 1, the examiner’s response is not
pertinent to the claim limitations and we can find nothing in the
applied references which would have suggested the use of stator
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
10
flats as recited in claims 7 and 8. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of these claims.
With respect to claim 9, appellants argue that there is
no teaching in any of the applied references of a means for
retaining the coils on the poles [brief, page 11]. The examiner
responds that Finegold clearly teaches such a means [answer, page
6]. We agree with the examiner that Finegold would have
suggested to the artisan the broad idea of a means for retaining
the stator coils on the stator poles. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 9. Since appellants merely list what is
recited in claims 10-13 without any additional arguments as to
why these limitations would not have been obvious to the artisan,
these claims stand or fall with claim 9 from which they depend.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 10-13.
With respect to claim 15, appellants argue that there is
no teaching in any of the applied references of the start and
finish windings extending circumferentially about the coils
[brief, page 12]. The examiner responds that Finegold teaches
this feature in his terminals 50 and 76 [answer, page 6].
Although Finegold only shows two terminals for all the coils, we
agree with the examiner that the separate coils of a variable
reluctance motor are typically situated in a circumferential
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
11
manner (see, for example, FIG. 1 of Konecny). Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 15.
2. The rejection of claims 5 and 6 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny
or the admitted prior art, and further
in view of Newberg.
This rejection is explained on page 4 of the answer.
Although claims 5 and 6 were rejected using the additional
teachings of Newberg, appellants have presented no separate
arguments in support of the patentability of these claims. In
fact, appellants have indicated that claims 5 and 6 should stand
or fall with claim 1 [brief, page 5]. Therefore, since we
sustained the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection
of claims 5 and 6.
3. The rejection of claims 16 and 17 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny
or the admitted prior art, and further
in view of Shirakawa, Gaser or Sakurai.
This rejection is explained in the paragraph bridging
pages 4 and 5 of the answer. Specifically, the examiner cites
each of Shirakawa, Gaser and Sakurai as a teaching in sensing the
position of the rotor with respect to the stator in a motor. The
examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to use one of these sensing means in the Finegold motor as
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
12
modified by any of the secondary reference teachings. Appellants
respond that the rotational sensing structures of the applied
references are markedly different from the claimed stator sensor
pack and rotor sensor pack of claim 17 [brief, pages 12-13]. The
examiner reiterates that Shirakawa, Gaser and Sakurai generally
teach means for sensing the rotational position of a rotor with
respect to a stator [answer, page 6].
It is not entirely clear what is included within the
terms “stator sensor pack” and “rotor sensor pack.” The
specification does not provide a specific definition of these
terms, but the specification does give a specific example of
these elements in the preferred embodiment of the invention.
However, details of the stator sensor pack and the rotor sensor
pack have been recited in claim 18, and the examiner has
indicated that claim 18 contains allowable subject matter. Thus,
we can conclude that the examiner has not read the preferred
embodiment into claim 17 which broadly recites a “stator sensor
pack” and a “rotor sensor pack.” Since appellants submitted
separate claims directed to details of these two sensor packs, we
agree with the examiner that the sensor packs as broadly recited
in claim 17 should be interpreted broadly. Such being the case,
we also agree with the examiner that the invention of claim 17
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
13
would have been obvious to the artisan in view of the teachings
of the applied references. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 16 and 17.
In summary, we have sustained the rejections with respect
to claims 1, 3-6 and 9-17, but we have not sustained the
rejections with respect to claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-17 is affirmed-
in-part.
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
15
MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd
One Maritime Plaza
Fourth Floor
720 Water Street
Toledo, OH 43604