Ex Parte Yalamanchili et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

14632339 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/632,339 02/26/2015 Venkat R. Y alamanchili
34007 7590 04/03/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
LEAR 54367 PUS 4554
EXAMINER
BARNES, MALCOLM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKA T R. Y ALAMANCHILI
and RICHARD J. HAMPO
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5, 6, 16 and 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants are identified as the Applicant, Lear Corporation, which
according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. See App. Br.
2.
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
The invention relates generally to electrical transformers typically
including a primary winding and a secondary winding wound about a
magnetic core. (Spec. Jr 2). Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 21
are representative of the appealed subject matter and are reproduced below:
1. A planar transformer comprising:
a magnetic core;
a first packet having a first set of conductor plates forming a
primary winding coil,
the first packet being at a first position along the magnetic core;
a second packet having a second set of conductor plates
forming a secondary winding coil, the second packet being at a
second position along the magnetic core;
wherein the conductor plates of each packet are identical
individual structures formed entirely of a conductive material
detached from any insulator and have a same type of
configuration including a same rectangular perimeter, each
conductor plate having a serpentine channel separating a region
of the conductor plate into a first portion having a first
connection area within the rectangular perimeter and a second
portion having a second connection area within the rectangular
perimeter, each conductor plate further having a hole in a
central region within the rectangular perimeter for receiving the
magnetic core, each conductor plate corresponding to one wire
tum of a winding coil with one of the first and second portions
being a start point of the wire tum and the other one of the first
and second portions being an end point of the wire tum; and
wherein in each packet the conductor plates of the packet are
stacked on top of one another with alternate ones of the
conductor plates being flipped relative to one another such that
the first connection areas of the conductor plates are aligned
with the first connection areas of the flipped conductor plates
and the second connection areas of the conductor plates are
2
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
aligned with the second connection areas of the flipped
conductor plates, the conductor plates are connected together
within the rectangular perimeter at the connection areas of the
conductor plates to establish electrical continuity between
neighboring conductor plates to thereby form a corresponding
one of the winding coils.
21. The planar transformer of claim 1 wherein:
the first packet further has a first set of insulator sheets and the
second packet further has a second set of insulator sheets;
the insulator sheets of each packet has a single window and a
hole for receiving the magnetic core and is either of a first type
or a second type, wherein the single window of each insulator
sheet of the first type is at a first position and the single window
of each insulator sheet of the second type is at a second
position; and
in each packet the single window of each insulator sheet of the
first type is aligned with the first connection areas of the
conductor plates of the packet and the single window of each
insulator sheet of the second type is aligned with the second
connection areas of the conductor plates of the packet, and the
insulator sheets of the first type are respectively between odd
neighboring pairs of the conductor plates of the packet and the
insulator sheets of the second type are respectively between
even neighboring pairs of the conductor plates of the packet, the
conductor plates of the packet being connected together at the
connection areas of the conductor plates through the single
windows of the insulator sheets.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
Appellants (see generally App. Br.) request review of the following
rejections:
3
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
I. Claims 1, 16, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Merriam (US 2002/0130753) in view of Fujiyoshi (US
2002/0070836).
II. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Merriam in
view of Fujiyoshi and Feldtkeller (US 7,825,764).
III. Claim 6 is rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Merriam in view of
Fujiyoshi, Feldtkeller, and Toshio (JP 2002237419 A).
IV. Claims 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Merriam in view ofFujiyoshi and Youlan (CN
203850116 U).
V. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Merriam
in view ofFujiyoshi, Youlan, and Park (US 2013/0099885).
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 3-14.)
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine that the Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
2 Appellants' arguments are directed to independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 21. (App. Br. 4--13). Appellants do not provide separate arguments
addressing the dependent claims 5, 6, 16 and 22-26 (including separate
Rejections II-V). We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 which we
select as representative of the rejected claims. We will also address
separately argued dependent claim 21.
4
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. However, Appellants have identified
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. Our reasons follow:
Claim 1
The Examiner found Merriam describes a planar transformer first and
second packets (28, 30) each including conductor plates (14). (Final Act. 4).
The Examiner found the adjacent conductor plates of the packet are flipped
relative to one another. (Final Act. 4 ). The Examiner found Merriam does
not teach the conductive material is detached from the insulator. The
Examiner found Fujiyoshi teaches a transformer where the conductive
material is detached from the insulator. The Examiner determined it would
have been obvious to form the transformer of Merriam wherein the
conductive material is detached from the insulator to provide a thin, high-
frequency transformer which can handle a large current. (Final Act. 4--5).
Appellants argue Merriam does not have identical conductor/insulator
plates as required by independent claim 1 because the conductor/insulator
plates (14/11) of Merriam have two different types of structures. (App. Br.
5---6).
This argument lacks persuasive merit. Appellants have not disputed
the Examiner's determination that Fujiyoshi exemplifies individual
conductor plates detached from any insulator plate. (See App. Br. 6; Final
Act. 4.). The Examiner relied on the combination of Merriam and Fujiyoshi
for suggesting the conductor and insulator plate arrangement required by
claim 1. Thus, Appellants' argument does not address the rejection provided
by the Examiner.
5
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
Appellants argue the rejection provided by the Examiner lacks
adequate rational underpinnings to modify the teachings of Merriam with the
teachings of Fujiyoshi because both references teach transformers that are
thin, high-frequency transformers that can handle a large current. (App. Br.
6-7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that thin, high-frequency transformers
that can handle a large current could have been formed from structures
described both by Merriam and Fujiyoshi. In other words, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the transformer could have
been formed with either configuration wherein the conductive material is
attached or detached from the insulator to result in a thin, high-frequency
transformer which can handle a large current. As such, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that both configurations are suitable
alternatives for one another. Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent
for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious. In re
Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Siebentritt, 54 CCPA 1083,
372 F.2d 566, 568 (C.C.P.A. 1967). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' contention that Examiner articulates no rational underpinning
for combining the teachings of the references.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner we
sustain the rejections of claims 1-5, 6, 16 and 22-26. 3
3 Appellants did not provide separate arguments addressing the additional
references cited in Rejections II-V. Consequently, we have not provided a
discussion of these references.
6
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
Claim 21
The dispositive issue for claim 21 is:
Did the Examiner err in determining Merriam in view of Fujiyoshi
describe or suggest a planar transformer wherein each insulator sheet has a
single window as required by claim 21?
The Examiner found Merriam describes a planar transformer wherein
each insulator sheet has a single window as required by claim 21. The
Examiner specifically states:
[T]he insulator sheets of each packet has a single window (Merriam:
"small aperture communicating through the layer of 11 ") ... wherein
the single window (Merriam: "small apertures communicating
through the layer 11 ") of each insulator sheet of the first type
(Merriam: the first type of insulator includes the aperture at starting
points 18) is at a first position and the single window of each insulator
sheet of the second type (Merriam: the second type of insulator
includes the aperture at ending points 20) is at a second position."
(Final Act. 5---6, emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue Merriam's insulator comprises multiple windows in
the insulation layer while each claimed insulator sheet has a single window.
(App. Br. 11-12).
We agree with Appellants. As set forth above, the Examiner's
position is the single window in Merriam's insulation layer are depicted by
the apertures (18) and (20) which communicate through the insulation layer
(11). Contrary to the Examiner's position, each insulator layer (11) include
a first and second aperture at starting point (18) and ending point (20) (Fig.
7
Appeal2017-008760
Application 14/632,339
2; and paragraph [0046]). Accordingly, each insulator layer (11) of Merriam
does not have a single aperture as required by claim 21.
For the foregoing reasons we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 21.
ORDER
The obviousness rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 16 and 22-26 are
affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 21 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8