11558274 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

Ex Parte Zafferri

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 19, 2012

11558274 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/558,274 11/09/2006 Roberto Zafferri 40000141-0001-002 1961 26263 7590 01/19/2012 SNR DENTON US LLP P.O. BOX 061080 CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080 EXAMINER DESAI, NAISHADH N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte ROBERTO ZAFFERRI ________________ Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9: Claims 1-5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawamoto (PCT/JP2004/009100; Japanese published unexamined patent application No. W02005/002030 A1; published Jan. 6, 2005) in view of Yoshihara, (JP 2004/236487; published Aug. 19, 2004). Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawamoto in view of Yoshihara and Sakamoto (US RE38346 E; reissued Dec. 16, 2003). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Independent claim 1 is representative:1 1. A stepping motor comprising a stator, a rotor and a control circuit, the stator being provided at two sides thereof with coils electrically connected with the control circuit; the stator comprising three magnetic pole ends spaced apart from one another by 120 degrees, and which collectively constitute a rotor hole for receiving the rotor; the rotor comprising a magnetic rotor and a rotor shaft; the magnetic rotor comprising several magnetic poles, wherein, the stator is a single stator vane integrally formed or a stator vane consisting of three vanes, the number of magnetic poles of the magnetic rotor being an even number which is greater than 2 and can not be 1 Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 7 together as a group (see App. Br. 10- 11). Appellant nominally argues claim 9 separately (App. Br. 12), but the arguments presented for claim 9 are substantially the same as those presented for claims 1-5 and 7. Accordingly, we treat claims 1-5, 7, and 9 as a single claim grouping, and we select claim 1 as representative of this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 3 divided exactly by 3, and wherein an arc length of the magnetic pole ends of the stator are [sic: is] greater than that of a single magnetic pole of the rotor but less than that of two adjacent magnetic poles of the rotor. (Emphasis added.). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Kawamoto teaches all of the claim 1 limitations except for the limitation of “an arc length of the magnetic pole ends of the stator are greater than that of a single magnetic pole of the rotor but less than that of two adjacent magnetic poles of the rotor” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner relies on Yoshihara’s Figure 1 to teach this limitation (Ans. 4, 9-10). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Kawamoto’s motor with the teachings of Yoshihara to make a stepping motor having stator pole arc lengths greater than that of a single rotor pole, but less than that of two adjacent rotor poles (Ans. 4-5, 9). The Examiner reasons that the motivation to combine Yoshihara and Kawamoto would be to reduce cogging torque of the motor and suppress vibrations (Ans. 4-5, 9). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning to combine Kawamoto and Yoshihara is incorrect because Yoshihara does not teach the cogging torque of a motor is reduced and vibrations suppressed as a consequence of configuring the arc length of the magnetic pole ends of a stator to be greater than that of a single magnetic pole of the rotor but less than that of two adjacent magnetic poles of the rotor. (App. Br. 10 (emphasis added)). Appellant contends that in order to reduce the cogging torque of the motor and suppress vibrations, Yoshihara instead Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 4 uses stator poles with ends having different circular arc radii – not the claimed arc lengths (id.). We agree with Appellant thatYoshihara does not teach that the stator/rotor arc length ratio is what provides the benefits of reduced cogging torque and suppressed vibrations. Instead, Yoshihara teaches that benefits are instead due to the different arc radii of the stator poles and the resultant differently sized gaps (Fig. 1, δ1, δ2) between the stator and rotor poles (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0012], [0027]).2 However, the fact that Yoshihara does not expressly state why the particular stator/rotor arc length ratio was chosen is not dispositive of whether the combination of Kawamoto and Yoshihara render claim 1 obvious. Kawamoto’s Figure 1 depicts a stepping motor wherein the arc length of each stator pole end is less than that of the rotor poles. In contrast, Yoshihara’s Figure 1 depicts a stepping motor wherein the arc length of each stator pole end is greater than that of a single rotor pole, but less than that of two adjacent rotor poles, as recited by the last limitation of claim 1. Restated, Kawamoto and Yoshihara together provide evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ratio lengths taught by Kawamoto and Yoshihara to be art recognized functionally equivalent means for configuring the components of a stepping motor. We, therefore, conclude one of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted that a stepping motor would operate as intended irrespective of whether the chosen stator/rotor arc length ratio is less than the ratio range recited by claim 1 (Kawamoto) or, alternatively, whether a stator with 2 All citations to Yoshihara refer to the English translation made of record April 29, 2009. Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 5 dimensions that satisfy the recited ratio range were substituted (Yoshihara). “[W]hen … the prior art … is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citation omitted). Our conclusion is supported by Appellant’s Specification. Appellant’s Specification merely describes one of the various disclosed embodiments by stating without further explanation that “the arc length of the respective magnetic pole end surfaces 23, 24 and 25 of the stator vane 21 is between that of a magnetic pole and that of the two adjacent magnetic poles” (¶ [0027]). Nothing in Appellant’s Specification indicates that any unexpected result occurs as a result of using these specific arc lengths or that any detriment occurs as a result of using different arc lengths. In fact, Appellant’s unclaimed Figure 2 embodiment (which is similar to Kawamoto’s Figure 1 embodiment) provides evidence that one stepping motor stator that is functionally equivalent to the claimed stepping motor stator is one wherein the stator arc length is less that the rotor pole arc length. Appellant also argues that Kawamoto teaches away from the claimed stator/rotor arc lengths because Kawamoto’s Figure 1 shows that the arc length of each stator pole is less than the arc length of a single rotor pole (App. Br. 11). This argument is not persuasive. The mere fact that Kawamoto discloses a different arc length is insufficient to conclude that Kawamoto would discourage one of ordinary skill from modifying the arc lengths. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the Appeal 2010-001862 Application 11/558,274 6 path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as of dependent claims 2-5 and 7, which were not separately argued. Regarding the remaining obviousness rejection of claim 9, Appellant provides no patentability argument in relation to the additionally cited reference, Sakamoto. Appellant instead argues that claim 9 is patentable for reasons given for claim 1 and that the additional reference Sakamoto does not cure defect in the rejection (App. Br. 12). For the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 9. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 9 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED gvw