Ex Parte Bentin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

14022268 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/022,268
91924 7590
NAOMIASSIA
32 Habarzel Street
Tel-Aviv, 6971048
ISRAEL
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/10/2013 Keila Bentin
08/24/2016
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.
P-KHB-7399-US 9367
EXAMINER
KIM,JOHNK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
naomih@computer-law.co.il
adi@computer-law.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEILA BENTIN
Appeal 2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
Technology Center 2800
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3---6. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claim 2 has been cancelled and claim 7 has been withdrawn from
consideration (Final Act. 1-2),
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an electronic motor
that produces mechanical energy of rotation using opposing magnetic forces
(Specification, 1, Abstract). Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electric motor comprising:
two stators each provided with at least two electromagnets; and
a rotor provided with at least two electromagnets,
wherein the rotor is positioned between the two stators in the axial
direction.
6. An electromagnet comprising:
a coil wire structure including a plurality of coil wires;
an iron structure; and
paramagnetic material that separates ( l) the coil \~1ire strt1cture
from the iron structure and (2) segments of the coil wires from
each other.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mori
Dombrovski
Tankard
US 2002/0070621 Al
US 2003/0030339 Al
US 6,628,105 Bl
REJECTIONS
June 13, 2002
Feb. 13,2003
Sept. 30, 2003
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Dombrovski (Final Act. 3).
2
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Mori (Final Act. 3).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dombrovski and Mori (Final Act. 4--5).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dombrovski and Tankard (Final Act. 5---6).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dombrovski (Final Act. 6).
ISSUES
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
35 US.C. § 102(b): Claim 1
Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Dombrovski
(App. Br. 3-5). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Dombrovski discloses
"two stators each provided with at least two electromagnets; and a rotor
provided with at least two electromagnets," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the interpretation of "at least two electromagnets" is
unreasonably broad (Br. 4). According to Appellant, their Specification
describes "two electromagnets" as two separate electromagnets having
opposite polarities (id.). Dombrovski, Appellant contends, does not describe
a difference in operation of two adjacent windings from a single winding of
twice the size and thus, does not describe two electromagnets (id.).
Appellant also argues the Examiner relies on two different figures, Figures 2
and 5 (id.). Moreover, Appellant asserts disclosure of "any number of
poles" is not a disclosure of distinct electromagnets because permanent
magnets may have poles also (id. at 4--5).
We are not persuaded. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner's
interpretation of "electromagnet" is in error. Initially we note, as a matter of
claim construction, Appellant's assertion that their Specification describes
"two electromagnets" is not persuasive as the term "electromagnet" is not
defined explicitly in the Specification. Furthermore, Appellants point only
to Figure 1 as supporting this interpretation (Br. 4). However, Figure 1 is
described as one embodiment which describes "two electromagnets
comprising elements 4, and 5 comprised of iron (iron structures), electrical
coils 6 and 7 (coil structures) and carcass or housing 45 (Fig. 6)" (Spec.
3:36-37, 5:23-25).
Furthermore, the Examiner has provided definitions of electromagnet
and set forth why Dombrovski discloses electromagnets as recited (Ans. 2-
4; Final Act. 3). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Figure
5 fails to disclose two stators, each provided with at least two
electromagnets; and a rotor provided with at least two electromagnets.
4
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
Specifically, Figure 5 of Dombrovski discloses "a stator 515 having at least
two stator windings 520 located in proximity to each other" (Dombrovski
i-f 36). Figure 5 of Dombrovski discloses four separate stators, each having
at least two stator windings (electromagnets). Similarly, Dombrovski
discloses "a rotor 505 having at least two superconductor windings 510
located in proximity to each other" (Dombrovski i-f 36). (See also Spec. 5:
23-25 describing electromagnets).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Dombrovski discloses "two stators each provided with at least two
electromagnets; and a rotor provided with at least two electromagnets," as
recited in claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Dombrovski.
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 4 and 5
Appellant argue the rejections of claims 4 and 5 should be reversed
based on their dependence on claim 1 (Br. 8-9). For the reasons set forth
supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 4 and 5 fall with claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Dombrovski and Tankard and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Dombrovski (Final Act. 6).
35 US.C. § 102(b): Claim 6
Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Mori (Br. 5-7).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
5
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Mori discloses
"paramagnetic material that separates ( 1) the coil wire structure from the
iron structure and (2) segments of the coil wires from each other," as recited
in claim 6?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Mori does not disclose any paramagnetic material
providing the recited separation (Br. 5). Appellant asserts Mori describes
"aluminum nitride" and "aluminum oxide" and not "aluminum" (id.).
According to Appellant, neither "aluminum nitride" nor "alumina"
(aluminum oxide) is a paramagnetic material (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner has
shown alumina is a paramagnetic material (Ans. 5---6). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Mori discloses the invention as
recited in claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Mori.
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claim 3
Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Dombrovski and
Mori (App. Br. 7-8). The issue presented by the arguments are:
Issue 3 a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Dombrovski and Mori teaches or suggests "paramagnetic material separating
at least segments of the wire coils from each other and the coil wire structure
from the iron structure," as recited in claim 3 and
Issue 3b: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the
teachings and suggestions of Dombrovski and Mori?
6
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Mori does not teach or suggest use of a
paramagnetic material but instead teaches the use of aluminum nitride and
alumina (Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments, as set
forth above with respect to claim 6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dombrovski and Mori teaches
or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 3.
Appellant further argues the Examiner has not explained why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use a paramagnetic
material in each of the electromagnets of Dombrovski (Br. 7-8). More
specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained how adding
Mori' s paramagnetic material to Dombrovski' s teachings, would have
increased the efficiency of Dombrovski's device (id. at 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner has
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined Mori' s teaching with those of
Dombrovski - the performance would be improved because the core and
coils are electrically, magnetically separated and the higher thermal
conductivity improves cooling (Ans. 6). Appellant has not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's
findings and conclusion. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner
improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Dombrovski and
Mori.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Dombrovski and Mori.
7
Appeal2016-005628
Application 14/022,268
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Dombrovski is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Mori is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dombrovski and Mori is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dombrovski and Tankard is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dombrovski 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8