11663271 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014)

Ex Parte Gerster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2014

11663271 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014)

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. 11/663,271 05/18/2007 Joachim Gerster 0070747-000001 5930 35161 7590 04/25/2014 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER ANDREWS, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2014 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 JOACHIM GERSTER, WITOLD PIEPER RUDI ANSMANN, MICHAEL KOEHLER, and MICHAEL VON PYSCHOW ____________ Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examinerâ€™s final rejection of claims 1-15, 25, 26, 29, 31-34, 36, 37and 39. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 2 Appellantsâ€™ claimed invention is directed to a method of producing a soft magnetic core and the product produced thereby. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for the production of a soft magnetic core for generators or motors, comprising: - - providing a plurality of magnetically activated and/or magnetically activatable laminations from a CoFeV alloy, which alloy comprises a vanadium content V, such that 0.75 < V < 2.5 % by weight; - stacking of the plurality of laminations to form a core assembly; - optionally magnetically activating the core assembly, if it comprises magnetically activatable laminations; and then - structuring of the magnetically activated core assembly or the core assembly made of magnetically activated laminations to form a soft magnetic core having rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties. In addition to alleged admitted prior art, the Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Yamamoto EP 1503486 A1 Feb. 2, 2005 Lindquist US 2002/015840 A1 Oct. 31, 2002 Deevi US 6,685,882 B2 Feb. 3, 2004 Foster US 3,337,373 Aug. 22, 1967 Bate US 3,718,776 Feb. 27, 1973 Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 3 HÃ¤nggi1 CH 668331 A5 Dec. 15, 1988 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 29, 31-34, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Applicantsâ€™ alleged admitted prior art (HÃ¤nggi and Bozorth) taken with Yamamoto. Claims 3-6 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the above-identified prior art further in view of Lindquist. Claims 7, 10-12, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the above-identified prior art applied against claim 1 further in view of Deevi. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the above-identified prior art applied against claim 1 further in view of Foster. Claims 13 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the above-identified prior art applied against claim 1 further in view of Bate. We reverse the stated rejections. Concerning the base rejection over the combination of alleged admitted prior art2 taken with Yamamoto, the Examiner has found that there is no admitted prior art teaching of structuring a soft magnetic core so as to 1 HÃ¤nggi is relied on by the Examiner based on Appellantsâ€™ alleged admissions with respect thereto set forth in the subject Specification (Ans. 16). 2 The Examinerâ€™s references to lines 5 and 6 appearing at page 1 of the subject Specification as representing admitted prior art appears to be inaccurate (Ans. 5). Rather, some acknowledged prior art appears to be identified in the third full paragraph of the first page of the Specification and further discussed in several subsequent lines of the Specification. Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 4 have a rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties (Ans. 5). In this regard, we observe that Appellants do not admit that core production method of HÃ¤nggi (CH 668 331 A5) yields a core with a rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties, as required by rejected independent claim 1.3 (Spec. pp. 1 and 2). In particular, Appellants describe the teachings of HÃ¤nggi (CH 668 331 A5) as being drawn to forming a core having increased magnetic effect for stationary magnetic heads, which disclosure of HÃ¤nggi is described by Applicants as not being applicable to the demands for forming rotating cores for generators requiring the formation of a soft magnetic core having rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties (Spec. 2). The Examiner turns to Yamamoto (Ans. 6). Yamamoto is directed to a motor and manufacturing method/apparatus wherein different rolling directions are said to be achieved in a plurality of cores which are to be stacked during the manufacturing process via the turning of flat rolled magnetic steel sheets and strip used as a core workpiece (Ans. 5; Yamamoto; abstract; Â¶Â¶ 0010- 0013). The stacking of the cores with turning through a particular angle, which is a specified odd number multiple, is said to reduce cogging torque of the motor (Yamamoto; Â¶0014). The Examiner maintains that (Ans. 6): 3 Nor has the Examiner established that HÃ¤nggi, itself, teaches or suggests forming a core with a rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties. In this regard, the Examiner maintains that the base rejection is over alleged admitted prior art as to certain described references (HÃ¤nggi and Bozorth) found in the subject Specification, not on the underlying references themselves (Ans. 16). Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 5 [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of the AAPA (HÃ¤ngii) and orient the laminations in different texture directions to form a core having rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties as taught by Yamamoto to reduce cogging torque in the device. In this regard, the Examiner contends that the required formation of a soft magnetic core having rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties would inherently occur upon orienting the laminations of the alleged admitted prior art in different texture directions (Ans. 18). However and as argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not articulated an apparent reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify the magnetic head core structure of the admitted prior art (HÃ¤nggi) for the purposes of the alleged admitted prior art magnetic head structure based on the disparate teachings of Yamamoto with respect to forming and stacking motor rotor cores in a manner that yields cogging torque reduction (App. Br. 8-10 and 13-17; Reply Br. 14-17) and in a manner so as to inherently yield a soft magnetic core having a rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties. In particular, the Examiner has not explained why or how Yamamotoâ€™s teachings as to the particularized stacking of motor rotor cores to reduce cogging torque for the motor structure of Yamamoto would have instructed one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dissimilar stationary magnetic head core structure of the admitted prior art (HÃ¤nggi) to form a soft magnetic core having a rotationally symmetrical uniformity of magnetic properties. Nor has the Examiner articulated how the additional references applied against certain Appeal 2012-001396 Application 11/663,271 6 separately rejected dependent claims cure the deficiencies in the base rejection based on the admitted prior art and Yamamoto. It follows that we reverse the Examinerâ€™s obviousness rejections set forth in the Answer. CONCLUSION The Examinerâ€™s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed. REVERSED tc