Ex Parte Kouno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

14142146 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/142,146 12/27/2013
23117 7590 06/12/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naoaki KOUNO
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.
RYM-2018-3314 6201
EXAMINER
SCHINDLER, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAOAKI KOUNO and TETSUJI YAMANAKA
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter of this appeal relates to a position detector for
detecting a position of an object. Spec. 1 :9-10. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative (disputed limitation italicized):
1. A position detector configured to detect a position
of a detection object that moves relative to a reference part, the
position detector comprising:
1 In our analysis, we make reference to the Specification filed Dec. 27, 2013
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated Apr. 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed Oct. 11, 2016 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated
Feb. 10, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 7, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
a first magnetic flux transmission part disposed on one of
the detection object or the reference part, the first magnetic flux
transmission part having a first end, a second end, and a shape
that extends along a first virtual circle concentric to a rotation
axis of the detection object;
a second magnetic flux transmission part disposed to
define a gap between the first magnetic flux transmission part
and the second magnetic flux transmission part, the second
magnetic flux transmission part having a first end, a second
end, and a shape that extends along a second virtual circle that
is concentric to the first virtual circle and has a larger radius
than the first virtual circle;
a first magnetic flux generator disposed at a position
between the first end of the first magnetic flux transmission part
and the first end of the second magnetic flux transmission part;
a second magnetic flux generator disposed at a position
between the second end of the first magnetic flux transmission
part and the second end of the second magnetic flux
transmission part;
a magnetic flux density detector (i) disposed on an other
of the detection object or the reference part to be movable
within the gap relative to the one of the detection object or the
reference part and (ii) configured to output a signal according to
a density of a magnetic flux passing through the magnetic flux
density detector;
a first magnetic flux collector disposed on one side of the
magnetic flux density detector and facing the first magnetic flux
transmission part; and
a second magnetic flux collector disposed on an other
side of the magnetic flux density detector and facing the second
magnetic flux transmission part in a manner that binds the
magnetic flux density detector between the first magnetic flux
collector and the second magnetic flux collector, wherein
a magnetic resistance of a first magnetic path that is
defined between the first magnetic flux collector and the first
magnetic flux transmission part and a magnetic resistance of a
2
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
second magnetic path that is defined between the second
magnetic flux collector and the second magnetic flux
transmission part are respectively configured so that the
magnetic flux density detector is movable within the gap
relative to one of the detection object or the reference part along
a circular path that has a radius between a radius of the first
virtual circle and a radius of the second virtual circle where a
detected magnetic flux density passing through the magnetic
flux density detector decreases to a minimum, and
throughout the circular path, a center of the magnetic
flux density detector is disposed at a position that is radially
offset by a predetermined offset distance from a midpoint
between the first magnetic flux transmission part and the
second magnetic flux transmission part, and toward the second
magnetic flux transmission part along a radial direction of the
first virtual circle away from the rotation axis of the detection
object.
App. Br. 12-13 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant2 appeals, the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 3
1. Claims 1, 2, and 4--7 over Kobayashi4 in view of
Fujiwara5; and
2. Claim 3 over Kobayashi in view of Fujiwara and in further
view of Gandel. 6
Final Act. 5, 13; Ans. 2; App. Br. 7.
2 Applicant, Denso Corporation, is the Appellant and is also identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
3 The rejection of claims 5 and 7 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn. Ans. 2.
4 Kobayashi et al., JP 08-292004 A, published Nov. 5, 1996 ("Kobayashi").
Citations herein to the text of Kobayashi are to the machine translation in the
record.
5 Fujiwara et al., US 4,810,965, issued Mar. 7, 1989 ("Fujiwara").
6 Gandel et al., US 6,593,734 Bl, issued July 15, 2003 ("Gandel").
3
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
ANALYSIS
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellant and the Examiner, we reverse.
It is the Examiner's position that claims 1-7 would have been obvious
over the combination of Kobayashi and Fujiwara alone or further in view of
Gandel for the reasons stated on pages 5-15 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims as a group. App.
Br. 10. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and based upon the
lack of arguments directed to the subsidiary rejection, claims 2-7 will stand
or fall together with independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Fujiwara with those of Kobayashi because the Examiner "has
not explained why one of ordinary skill would look to a linear embodiment
of Fujiwara to modify a rotary embodiment of Kobayashi when Fujiwara
discloses rotary embodiments." App. Br. 7-8. Appellant acknowledges that
Fujiwara teaches "a pair of parallel magnetic sensing elements 180 and 181
having a space L'iL therebetween," but asserts that "[t]he space between two
parallel sensors is not 'a position that is radially offset by a predetermined
offset distance from a midpoint' as recited in claim 1." Id. at 8. According
to Appellant, Fujiwara does not state or imply that "the embodiments having
a linearly moving magnetic sensor are also applicable to angular position
detectors" or that a benefit is provided as the Examiner finds. Id.; see also
id. at 9-10.
The Examiner responds that the rotary and linear magnetic position
detectors of the cited prior art "are virtually identical in function except that
the magnetic yokes are curved in one to naturally allow for rotary movement
4
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
about a rotation axis while the yokes of a linear embodiment are straight to
naturally allow for linear movement." Ans. 3--4. Figure 8a of Kobayashi
and Figure 49 of Fujiwara are shown below.
Figure 8a above shows Kobayashi's rotary detector with magnetic yoke 11 a,
1 lb and Figure 49 above shows Fujiwara's linear embodiment with yokes
173, 174. Ans. 4--5; Kobayashi 55; Fujiwara 17:35--40.
Referring to Kobayashi, the Examiner explains that the magnetic flux
passes through two magnetic paths, which paths are effectively created by
the two core pieces 11 a, 11 b that attract and guide the magnetic flux from
the magnets along the core pieces from one magnet to the other. Id. at 5
(citing Kobayashi i-fi-155, 56, 58). The Examiner finds that Fujiwara
similarly discloses that yokes 173, 174 are made of a magnetic material and
5
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
that the major part of the magnetic flux emanates from the magnets and is
guided so as to circulate in the closed magnetic circuit through the yoke. Id.
at 5 (citing Fujiwara 3: 19-27). The Examiner finds that the yokes of
Kobayashi and Fujiwara guide the magnetic flux from one magnet to the
next by providing a magnetic path for the magnetic flux because magnetic
fields follow the path of least resistance and the cores are magnetic because
they are of a magnetic material. Id. at 5---6 (citing Fujiwara 7:39-41 for the
disclosure of iron as the ferromagnetic yoke material and Kobayashi i-f 55 for
disclosing the core consists of soft magnetic material). The Examiner
further finds that the only difference between Kobayashi and Fujiwara is that
Kobayashi desires to detect a rotary movement and curves the yokes to
allow the sensor to rotate about an axis with the yokes above and below the
sensor as shown in Figure 8a. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that Kobayashi's
yokes are curved to allow for the sensor to rotate about an axis because "[i]f
the yokes were not curved, the sensor would not be between them and there
would be no point to having the yokes there." Id.
Regarding Fujiwara's disclosure of rotary embodiments, the Examiner
responds that because both rotary and linear embodiments work in a similar
manner, the linear embodiments of Fujiwara are just as reasonably pertinent
as those of the rotary embodiments as both embodiments are magnetic
sensing devices that use magnetic yokes to guide magnetic flux in a desired
manner and to detect movement based on this magnetic flux. Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner further responds that the combination of Fujiwara's teachings
to modify Kobayashi's sensor is not to make Kobayashi's yokes I la, I lb
straight, but, rather, to apply Fujiwara's disclosure regarding the positioning
of the sensor and not the shape of the yokes or any other linear feature. Id.
6
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
at 9. Referring to Fujiwara's Figures 12 and 49, the Examiner finds that
Fujiwara suggests sensors 15 or 180, 181, respectively, can be positioned in
an offset manner between two yokes. Id. at 9--10. The Examiner's rejection
combines this teaching of Fujiwara with Kobayashi's rotary magnetic
position detector to yield a sensor that is offset from a middle between two
flux transmission parts, i.e., yokes 33. Id. at 10. According to the Examiner,
the benefit of positioning the sensor is shown in Fujiwara, specifically, the
positioning of the sensors to create spacing L'iL plays a role in offset
compensation for disturbances such as a temperature rise. Id. at 11-12
(citing Fujiwara 18:5-22). The Examiner also states that the combination is
motivated by a sensor design that has a longer measuring range, improved
linearity, compensates for a decrease in sensitivity, and provides for
detection in cases with and without an external disturbance such as
temperature rise. Id. at 18 (citing Fujiwara Abstract, 3:19--21, 3:56-68,
18: 12-25; Final Act. 9).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Fujiwara does not teach
that sensors elements 180, 181 being closer to yoke 1 73 than to yoke 17 4 has
any role in temperature compensation, but, rather, that temperature
compensation is achieved by a correction factor a calculated by having two
sensor elements 180, 181 with spacing L'iL where L'iL is in the direction of
movement of the sensor elements 180, 181. Reply Br. 5 (citing Fujiwara
18:5-55, Fig. 49). Based on this teaching, Appellant argues that it is,
therefore, not reasonable to conclude that where and how the sensors are
placed give the benefit of compensation as the Examiner finds. Id.
According to Appellant, "neither the correction factor nor the spacing L'iL
corresponds to the features at issue." Id. at 6.
7
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
Appellant also argues that Kobayashi and Fujiwara cannot be both
structurally similar and also structurally changed to realize the benefits of
the references individually. Id. Appellant further contends that the
Examiner's description of a magnetic field being stronger the closer you get
to the yoke and the stronger the leakage magnetic field will become so that
by offsetting the magnetic sensor, as described in Fujiwara in connection
with the example of Figure 49, the configuration will benefit from the sensor
being closer to a stronger magnetic field less likely to be influenced by an
undesirable external factor, is conclusory and not supported by evidence. Id.
Appellant contends that its Figure 2B shows the magnetic flux density
detector is closer to the bottom of the image, which is away from the rotation
axis of the detection object, while Figure 49 of Fujiwara is a linear detector,
which does not have a rotational axis by which a radial offset can be
determined. Id. at 7-9. Appellant further contends that the offset of
Appellant's application has a different technical effect than the effect
disclosed in Fujiwara as Fujiwara allows for temperature correction while
Appellant's "results in increased accuracy ... and only requires a single
detector." Id. at 10 (citing Spec. 6:18-23, Fig. 2B).
Finally, Appellant argues that because Fujiwara is a linear detector,
there is no reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would select
one or the other magnetic flux transmission part (yokes 173, 174) to
correspond to a radially inner or radially outer flux transmission part without
the benefit of hindsight or locate the sensing elements 180 and 181 in a
radially interior or radially exterior position within the gap. Id. at 9.
Appellant also asserts that combining the features of Fujiwara's Figure 49
8
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
with Kobayashi would result in an offset toward the rotation axis of the
detection object which is opposite of what is required by claim 1. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Kobayashi and Fujiwara.
Claim 1 requires that a center of the magnetic flux density detector is
positioned such that it is (1) "radially offset by a predetermined offset
distance from a midpoint" between two magnetic flux transmission parts and
(2) "toward the second magnetic flux transmission part," which has "a shape
that extends along a second virtual circle that is concentric to the first virtual
circle [shape of the first magnetic flux transmission part] and has a larger
radius than the first virtual circle." For this claim limitation, the Examiner
relies upon Fujiwara's Figures 12, 49, and 50 as disclosing an offset of the
center of the magnetic flux density detector from a midpoint between the
first and second magnetic flux transmission parts and toward the second
magnetic flux transmission part. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner further finds
that Fujiwara discloses multiple benefits of such a configuration including
longer measuring range, improved linearity, and compensation for a
decrease in sensitivity. Id. at 9 (citing Fujiwara Abstract 3: 19-21, 3 :56-68,
and 18: 12-25).
Based on the cited record in this appeal, we agree with Appellant that
the benefits disclosed in Fujiwara have not been shown to be associated with
the offset position depicted in Figure 12 and described in column 3 of
Fujiwara, and specifically, the Examiner has not provided an explanation of
why such benefits would have been expected when applied not just to the
rotary configuration of Kobayashi, but toward the second magnetic flux
transmission part as opposed to the first magnetic flux transmission part in
9
Appeal2017-007368
Application 14/142, 146
Kobayashi's rotary configuration. While the Examiner finds the rotary and
linear magnetic position detectors of the cited prior art may be virtually
identical in function except for the shape of the magnetic yokes, the
Examiner does not sufficiently explain why the benefit associated with
Fujiwara's disclosure of spacing between two parallel sensors teaches or
suggests a position offset from the midline and toward a second magnetic
flux transmission part in a rotary configuration.
In sum, the Examiner's finding (Ans. 9) that Fujiwara teaches that
sensors 15 or 180, 181 "can be positioned in an offset manner between two
yokes" does not teach or suggest an offset position that is toward a second
magnetic flux transmission part having a larger radius shape in a rotary
configuration. Therefore, the combination of Kobayashi and Fujiwara does
not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision.
REVERSED
10