Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2012

11257119 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HOUNG JOON KIM and SHIGETA UEDA
____________________

Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, 16, 20, and 30-38. Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 18, 22, and
24 have been found to contain allowable subject matter. Br. 2. Claims 1, 2,
7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25-29 have been canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to “a permanent magnet field type dynamo-
electric machine” and a method “for performing the drive and regeneration
in a carrier system or transport system.” Spec. 1. Claim 3, reproduced below
with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
3. A transport system comprising:
a dynamo-electric machine in which a resultant magnetic field of a
first field magnet and a second field magnet comprising a field of magnet is
changed, comprising a stator with a primary winding and a rotor with a field
magnet and a shaft, said first field magnet having different polarity magnetic
poles sequentially arranged in a rotation direction and second field magnet
having different polarity magnetic poles sequentially arranged in a rotation
direction, and said dynamo-electric machine further comprising a
mechanism for shifting one field magnet in axial and rotation directions with
respect to the other field magnet;
a truck of which a power source is said dynamo-electric machine; and
a power converter for controlling the electric power of said dynamo-
electric machine,
wherein said first and said second field magnets are opposed to a
magnetic pole of said stator, and said dynamo-electric machine further
comprises a mechanism for changing the resultant magnetic field of said first
and said second field magnets according to a direction of the torque of said
rotor
Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

3
wherein said changing mechanism comprises;
means for arranging centers of equal-polarity of said first field
magnet and the second field magnet according to a balance of the direction
of the torque generated by said rotor and the magnetic action force between
the first field magnet and the second field magnet, and
means for changing the resultant magnetic field of the first field
magnet and the second field magnet as the direction of the torque generated
in said rotor reverses.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 3, 4, 16, 20, 30-33, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masuzawa (US 5,821,710; Oct. 13,
1998) and Horie (US 5,583,385; Dec. 10, 1996). Ans. 3-7.
2. Claims 14, 34, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Masuzawa, Horie, and Nishikawa (US 6,252,323
B1; June 26, 2001 (filed Mar. 29, 2000)). Ans. 7-9.

THE CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Masuzawa teaches all the limitations of claim
3 except: (1) a truck; (2) a current collector which takes the electric power
from the outside to said truck; and (3) the control circuit for controlling the
electric power of said dynamo-electric machine being a power converter.
Ans. 3-4. The Examiner cites Horie as teaching these limitations. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further provides a rationale for combining these two
references. Id.
Appellants argue that the combination of Masuzawa and Horie does
not teach “arranging centers of equal-polarity of said first field magnet and
the second field magnet according to a balance of the direction of the torque
Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

4
generated by said rotor and the magnetic action force between the first field
magnet and the second field magnet.” Br. 7-9. Appellants also assert that the
Examiner used impermissible hindsight when combining the two references.
Br. 7.

ISSUES
1. Does the record support a determination that Masuzawa and Horie
collectively would have taught or suggested a “arranging centers of
equal-polarity of said first field magnet and the second field magnet
according to a balance of the direction of the torque generated by said
rotor and the magnetic action force between the first field magnet and the
second field magnet”?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 3 is sustained. We agree with the Examiner that
Masuzawa teaches “arranging centers of equal-polarity of said first field
magnet and the second field magnet.” See Ans. 12 (citing Masuzawa
Abstract (describing a motor including “a mechanism for changing the phase
of the synthesized magnetic poles of the first and second field permanent
magnets”)).
We also agree that Masuzawa teaches “according to a balance of the
direction of the torque generated by said rotor and the magnetic action force
Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

5
between the first field magnet and the second field magnet.” Appellants
make several arguments that Masuzawa does not teach this limitation. For
the following reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
First, Appellants argue that Masuzawa does “not teach the claimed
balancing approach by using strengthened and weakened magnetic fields.”
Br. 7. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims
because none of the claims at issue recites any type of balancing approach
by using strengthened and weakened magnetic fields.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that neither
reference teaches or suggests “displacement of the first and second magnets
based on a balance between their magnetic force and rotor-generated
torque.” Br. 8. In particular, Appellants assert that Masuzawa teaches only a
motor in which “either the first field magnet or second field magnet is varied
as against the other based on a change in rotator speed.” Id. Even if
Appellants’ characterization of Masuzawa is correct, we do not agree that
when using the broadest reasonable interpretation the rejected claims require
more than what Appellants concede is taught by Masuzawa.
As the Examiner points out, the term “balance” is not explicitly
defined in the Specification. Ans. 11. In fact, the term does not appear
anywhere except in claims 3, 4, 30, 32, and 34. Thus, the Examiner
reasonably interprets the term “balance” broadly as “adjusting one object
with respect to another object.” Ans. 11. Appellants do not dispute this
interpretation. See generally Br.
In addition, the Examiner reasonably concluded that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made that when the first and second permanent magnets rotate the
Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

6
magnets will rotate at a certain speed causing a magnetic field.” Ans. 12
(citing Masuzawa col. 7, ll. 28-35 (“That is, the amount of magnetic fluxes .
. . flowing in the stator magnetic poles reaches its maximum during low-
speed rotation since the magnetic poles of the same polarity of the first and
second field permanent magnets 31 and 32 are aligned around the rotating
shaft 21.”)). Appellants do not dispute this determination. See generally Br.
Thus, according to the Examiner, “Masuzawa . . . teach[es] that there is a
balance [adjustment] between the torque and the rotating magnetic field of
the magnetic poles.” Ans. 11 (citing Masuzawa col. 6, ll. 32-47; col. 7, l. 39
– col. 8, l. 25; Figs. 11, 12). The Examiner’s reasoning is rational.
Appellants have not shown otherwise.
Finally, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ conclusory assertion
that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Masuzawa and Horie involved
impermissible hindsight. Br. 7. The Examiner articulated reasoning to justify
the obviousness conclusion. Ans. 4 (“It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the apparatus of Masuzawa et al to have a truck, a current collector and
power converter as taught by Horie et al in order to reduce higher harmonic
currents from flowing through the vehicle, thereby reducing noise.”).
Appellants have not provided any persuasive technical reasoning or directed
us to evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention could not have predictably combined the known components as
claimed. See generally Br. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 3 and of claims 4, 16, 20, 30-33, 36, and 37
which were not argued separately as obvious over Masuzawa and Horie. In
arguing the patentability of claims 14, 34, 35, and 38, Appellants assert that
Appeal 2010-004092
Application 11/257,119

7
Nishikawa does not cure the alleged deficiencies in Masuzawa and Horie as
discussed with respect to claim 3. Br. 9. For the same reasons as explained
before with respect to representative claim 3, we sustain the rejections of
claims 14, 34, 35, and 38 as obvious over Masuzawa, Horie, and Nishikawa.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 4, 14, 16, 20, and 30-38 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc