Ex parte NEUENSCHWANDER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 1998

07966876 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 26, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THOMAS R. NEUENSCHWANDER
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application 07/966,8761
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, GARRIS, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 4, 7 through 12, and 15. Claims 30 through 33 stand
allowed. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand objected to as being
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
2
dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable
according to the examiner if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. These noted claims constitute all of the
claims remaining in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a method of manufacturing
an interlocked lamination stack from a sheet of stock material
and a method of manufacturing a stack of interlocking laminations
from a sheet of stock material. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and
8, with copies thereof being appended to appellant’s brief.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Zimmerle 3,203,077 Aug. 31, 1965
Martin 4,728,842 Mar. 1, 1988
Webb et al 5,075,150 Dec. 24, 1991
(Webb)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a slot having the desired2
skew angle in a resulting stack of laminations. In light thereof,
we understand the second lamination, as does the first
3
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8 through 10, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in view of
Martin.
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in view of Martin, as applied
above, further in view of Webb.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 11), while the complete
statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12).
In the main brief (page 4), appellant indicates that claims
1, 2, 4, 7 through 10, 12, and 15 stand or fall together and that
claims 3 and 11 stand or fall together. Based upon this
statement, we focus our attention exclusively upon selected
claims 1 and 3, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 3
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
lamination, to include not only the recited centrally located
generally circular indentation but also a plurality of
circumferentially spaced openings defining a plurality of
circumferentially spaced slots.
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have3
considered all of the disclosure thereof for what it would have
fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Additionally,
this panel of the board has taken into account not only the
specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the
disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
4
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
We understand the examiner’s concern that the language “the
surface of said indentation” in both claims 3 and 11 is
indefinite in that it lacks proper antecedent basis.
However, when we read this language in the context of the
underlying disclosure (specification, page 10, lines 4 through
9), we reach the conclusion that the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject matter are determinate. More specifically, as
indicated in the referenced portion of the specification, the
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
5
amount of force acting on the indentation portion 48 (Figure 5)
is effective to improve the flatness of the portion so that “its
surface” is generally planar. Thus, we readily perceive that “the
surface” in the claim language at issue denotes both the upper
and lower faces of the indentation portion which are subjected to
the opposed forces acting thereon and flattened, as seen in
Figure 5. We, accordingly, determine that the language of claims
3 and 11 is definite in meaning.
The obviousness issues
CLAIM 1
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It follows that claims 2, 4, 7 through 10, 12, and 15 fall
therewith.
Claim 1 addresses a method of manufacturing an interlocked
lamination stack from a sheet stock material, with the
interlocked stack defining a central axis (as disclosed, the
central shaft hole 26 of Figure 2 has a central axis 28). The
claimed method requires, inter alia, the step of forming a first
lamination in stock material including forming openings and a
“centrally located” generally circular indentation defining a
corresponding depression and projection. As claimed, this
arrangement enables the first lamination to be rotatable relative
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
6
to the second lamination by an infinitely adjustable angle
sufficient to define a desired skew angle after which the
indentations are interlocked.
The patent to Zimmerle (Figures 7, 8, 11, and 12) teaches a
dynamoelectric machine lamination assembly and procedure
including three special holes 75, 85 that permit angular
displacement between adjacent laminations so as to allow
sufficient space for interlock means 76 to be skewed
simultaneously with skewing the winding slots along the outer
periphery of each of the rotor laminations (column 5, lines 61
through 71 and column 7, lines 28 through 33). We understand that
this discrete arrangement of special holes would permit limited
relative angular displacement between laminations based upon the
circumferential extent of the holes.
The Martin patent relates to a laminated assembly for a
dynamoelectric machine that includes interlocking projections and
recesses for securing adjacent laminations together by
compressive interference fit, wherein the compressive
interference fit is between ridges 52 on the projection 54 and
the recess 40 (Figures 3A and 4). It is clear to us that the
Martin teaching is concerned with a plurality of interlocking
projections and recesses on each lamination for securing adjacent
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
7
laminations. This viewpoint is buttressed by the claims of the
Martin patent and the discussion in column 1 (lines 20 through
24) of Martin of U.S. Patent No. 2,975,312 (of record in the
present application), which latter patent discloses interlocking
projections and recesses having the same identical outlines and
dimensions.
Based upon our assessment of the Zimmerle and Martin
patents, supra, we find ourselves in accord with appellant’s view
in the matter of the rejection of claim 1 (main brief, page 7)
that these teachings would not have been suggestive of using a
centrally located, generally circular indentation to interlock
laminas.
CLAIM 3
We reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 11 falls therewith.
As is apparent from the rejection, the examiner relies upon
the Webb patent solely for its teaching of the application of a
counter force. However, like the appellant (main brief, pages 9
and 10 and reply brief, page 3), we recognize that the Webb
teaching of the use of counter pressure during lamina
interlocking (column 5, lines 53 through 60) would not have been
suggestive of applying a counter force during the “forming” step,
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
8
as now claimed.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
reversed the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8 through 10, and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in
view of Martin; and
reversed the rejection of claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in view of
Martin and Webb.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
9
Anthony Niewyk
BAKER & DANIELS
111 East Wayne Street
Suite 800
Fort Wayne, IN 46802