Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13241320 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/241,320 09/23/2011 Cheng-Huang LIN TWT01956/US 4224
60589 7590 09/29/2017
JAMES 0""SULLIVAN
Room 1901, 19/F, Lee Garden One, 33 Hysan Avenue,
Causeway Bay
EXAMINER
KASTURE, DNYANESH G
Hong Kong,
HONG KONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
info@ckc-ip.com
ckchen @ ckc -ip. com
josullivan@ckc-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG-HUANG LIN and YUNG-YU CHIU
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants Cheng-Huang Lin and Yung-Yu Chiu1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated June 18, 2015 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1 and 8—
13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a motor. Claim 1, the only independent
claim on appeal, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A motor comprising:
a chassis having a fillister;
a stator assembly being disposed on the chassis and
located at a central area of the chassis;
a circuit element being disposed in the fillister;
a first resin material being filled within the fillister and
entirely covering all of exposed portions of the circuit element;
a second resin material covering a part of the stator
assembly, wherein the part is not joined with the chassis;
a shaft passing through the stator assembly and being
operatively connected to the chassis; and
a rotor assembly being pivotally sleeved to the stator
assembly via the shaft,
wherein the chassis has an outer round wall so as to define
the fillister, the outer round wall has a round wall height along
an axial direction of the shaft, the first resin material has a surface
height along the axial direction of the shaft, the round wall height
is larger than or equal to the surface height,
1 Appellants identify Delta Electronics, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated September 15, 2016 (“Br.”), at 3.
2 Claims 2—7 and 14—19 are cancelled. Br. 12—14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
wherein the rotor assembly has a rotor frame wall
surrounding the stator assembly, the rotor frame wall and the
outer round wall are partially overlapped along a direction
perpendicular to the axial direction of the shaft,
wherein the stator assembly comprises a plurality of
silicon steel sheets, the rotor assembly comprises a plurality of
magnetic elements, a clearance is between the silicon steel sheets
and the magnetic elements, the second resin material covers the
surface of the stator assembly with a thickness, the thickness is
larger than or equal to 5 pm, the clearance is larger than or equal
to 50 pm.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Engelberger
Nakatsuka
Rupp
Tobita
Akabane
Tung
Yoo
Nogami
US 5,973,424
US 6,075,304
US 6,175,171 B1
US 2004/0102597 A1
US 2006/0138877 A1
US 7,443,071 B2
US 2009/0185919 A1
US 2011/0027075 A1
Oct. 26, 1999
June 13, 2000
Jan. 16, 2001
May 27, 2004
June 29, 2006
Oct. 28, 2008
July 23,2009
Feb. 3,2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yoo and Nakatsuka, and as evidenced by Engelberger.
2. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nogami, Rupp, and Nakatsuka, and as evidenced by
Engelberger.
3
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
3. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yoo, Nakatsuka, and Tobita, and as evidenced by
Engelberger.
4. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable overNogami, Rupp, Nakatsuka, and Tobita, and as evidenced
by Engelberger.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1 and 3: The Rejections of Claims 1 and 8—13
as Unpatentable Over Yoo and Other Prior Art
In response to Rejection 1, Appellants argue claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 13
as a group. Appeal Br. 6—11. We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim, and claims 8, 9, 11, and 13 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In response to Rejection 3, Appellants do not
present any arguments directed to the patentability of dependent claims 10
and 12 over Yoo, Nakatsuka, and Tobita, and as evidenced by Engelberger.
We understand that Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for
independent claim 1, from which claims 10 and 12 depend.
The Examiner finds, in part, that Yoo discloses first resin material 280
being filled within the fillister and entirely covering all of exposed portions
of the circuit element 281. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3—5. Addressing Appellants’
argument that “there are spaces located between the bottom surface of the
PCB 281 and the molding portion 280,” the Examiner finds that “the blank
portions in Figure 13 ... are not voids but [are] actual circuit elements like
an Integrated Circuit chip (283) or capacitor (285) shown in Figure 4 which
4
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
project away from the circuit board.” Final Act. 15. According to the
Examiner, “[i]t is well known to depict these elements as blank portions in a
cross section of the mold . . . .” Id.
Figure 4 of Yoo is reproduced below:
FIG. 4
276 275 273
Figure 4 illustrates a cross-sectional view of Yoo’s fan assembly.
5
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
Annotated Figure 9 of Yoo is reproduced below:
Figure 9, a cross-sectional view of Yoo’s fan assembly, is annotated to
illustrate the “blank spaces,” mold 280 (in red), and printed circuit board 281
(in blue).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Yoo discloses “a
first resin material being filled within the fillister and entirely covering all of
exposed portions of the circuit element,” as recited in claim 1, is erroneous
because:
[Yoo] is ambiguous about whether the mold portion (280)
entirely covering all of the exposed portions of the circuit board
(281) or not. Referring to Fig. 9 of Yoo ... , two blank portions
are illustrated right under the circuit board (281). The Examiner
alleges that these are not voids but actual circuit elements like an
6
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
Integrated Circuit chip (283) or capacitor (285) shown in Figure
4 which project away from the circuit board, but there is no
disclosure in Yoo supporting the Examiner’s assertions.
Br. 8-9.
The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument is two-fold. First,
the Examiner correctly finds that Figure 4 discloses that integrated circuit
(IC) 283, capacitor 285, and connection terminals 287 are located on the
same side of the printed circuit board (PCB) 281. Ans. 4. We note that Yoo
also discloses that, as shown in Figure 5, molding portion 280 is a
thermoplastic resin that covers printed circuit board 281. Yoo | 63.
Addressing the rectangular “space” under the circuit board 281, the
Examiner finds that “it would not be possible to leave a perfectly rectangular
shaped void (represented by the enclosed blank space) during the molding
process.” Ans. 4. Because terminal leads 287 are illustrated as blank spaces
in Figures 2 and 8, the Examiner, thus, correctly finds that “it [is] likely that
blank spaces in other [figures] represent circuit elements.” Id. Appellants
do not address these findings by the Examiner, and, thus, do not identify
error in the rejection.
Second, the Examiner determines that Yoo’s chip 283 and capacitor
285 “are still COVERED as claimed because being covered DOES NOT
REQUIRE DIRECT CONTACT between the covering element and the
element being covered,” and “[e]ven if the circuit elements were in the
enclosed blank space and don’t make direct contact with the molding, they
are still covered because the molding surrounds them (the molding borders
the enclosed blank space).” Id. at 4—5. Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s construction of “covering,” as recited in claim 1, or suggest that
it is inconsistent with the Specification.
7
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
For the reasons above, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. The
rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 8—13 fall with claim 1.
Rejections 2 and 4: The Rejections of Claims 1 and 8—13
as Unpatentable Over Nogami and Other Prior Art
In response to Rejection 2, Appellants argue claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 13
as a group. Br. 10. We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim, and claims 8, 9, 11, and 13 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In response to Rejection 4, Appellants do not present any
arguments directed to the patentability of dependent claims 10 and 12 over
Nogami, Rupp, Nakatsuka, and Tobita, and as evidenced by Engelberger.
We understand that Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for
independent claim 1, from which claims 10 and 12 depend.
The Examiner finds, in part, that Rupp discloses first resin material 26
being filled within the fillister and entirely covering all of exposed portions
of the circuit element 19. Final Act. 8; Ans. 5—6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Rupp discloses “a
first resin material being filled within the fillister and entirely covering all of
exposed portions of the circuit element,” as recited in claim 1, is erroneous
because cooling surface 21 of circuit board 19 is exposed and is not covered
by resin material 26. Br. 10. Appellants are correct. The “printed circuit
board 19 and the switching transistors 20, with the exception of the cooling
surfaces 21 that are pressed against the support 132, are enclosed on all
sides by the molded mass 26.” Rupp 2:61—64 (emphasis added). Cooling
surfaces 21 are pressed against support 132 so that cooling fins 27 may
dissipate heat of the switching transistors 20. Id. at 3:5—10.
8
Appeal 2016-006779
Application 13/241,320
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. Claims 8—13 stand
with claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 8—13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoo and other prior art are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 8—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nogami and other prior art are REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9