Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

15137182 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2020)

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.
15/137,182 04/25/2016 Prasad Dev Hanumalagutti 83633848 1084
28395 7590 09/24/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
TRUONG, THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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 PRASAD DEV HANUMALAGUTTI,
MICHAEL W. DEGNER and FRANCO LEONARDI

____________

Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7–9, 12–16 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Adaniya (US 2011/01450551 A1
pub. June 16, 2011); claims 1–4, 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined prior art of Adaniya with Takahashi (US
2011/0316367 A1, pub. Dec. 29, 2011); and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC. as
the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

2
as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Adaniya with Matsui (US
2010/0264760 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2010).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Independent claims 1, 7 and 13 are illustrative2 (emphasis added to
highlight key disputed limitations):
1. A vehicle electric machine comprising:
a stator including a core having an end face, and end
windings extending from the end face; and
a cooling tunnel having an arcuate cross-section encasing
the end windings, sealing against the end face at opposing sides
of the end windings, and defining an inlet configured to receive
coolant, the cooling tunnel arranged to contain the coolant during
passage over the end windings and direct the coolant toward an
outlet
7. A vehicle electric machine comprising:
a rotor;
a stator including a core having an end face, and end
windings extending from the end face; and
a plurality of cooling tunnels encasing the end windings,
sealing against the end face at opposing sides of the end
windings and each end of the tunnels, and each defining an inlet
configured to receive coolant, the cooling tunnels arranged to
contain the coolant during passage over the end windings and
direct the coolant toward outlets.

2 At the outset, we note that the claim 7 and 13 as presented in the Claims
Appendix are incorrect as they include an amendment filed October 19,
2018 which was not entered by the Examiner (Advisory Act. mailed October
19, 2018; see also, e.g., Ans. 4;). The correct version of these claims is set
out here.

Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

3
13. A vehicle electric machine comprising:
a rotor;
a stator including a core having an end face, and end
windings extending from the end face; and
a cooling conduit encasing the end windings, having a
cooling tunnel portion and a cooling trough portion, the cooling
tunnel portion sealing against the end face at opposing sides of
the end windings and the cooling trough portion sealing against
the end face at one of the sides of the end windings, and defining
an inlet configured to receive coolant, the cooling conduit
arranged to retain the coolant during passage over the end
windings and direct the coolant toward an outlet.

Appellant only presents arguments directed to each independent
claim. Thus, we select claims 1, 7 and 13 as representative.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability.
However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claims 7
and 13 is anticipated within the meaning of § 102 in view of the applied
prior art of Adaniya, as well as the Examiner’s obviousness determination of
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections
on appeal for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including
the Examiner’s Response to Argument section.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (BPAI
Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

4
2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”).
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification . . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
The main dispute for claim 7 is whether the claim language “a
plurality of cooling tunnels . . . sealing against the end face” encompasses
the cooling tunnels described in Adaniya (Appeal Br. 3, 4; Reply Br. 2).3
The main dispute for claim 13 is whether the claim language “the cooling
tunnel portion sealing against the end face” and “the cooling trough portion
sealing against the end face” encompasses the cooling tunnel described in
Adaniya (Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).4
Appellant first incorrectly bases the argument on the presence of a
term “same end face” that is not in either of claim 7 or claim 13 (Appeal Br.
3-5; Ans. 4, 8). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error since
limitations not appearing in the claim may not be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).

3 Appellant does not dispute the remainder of the Examiner’s findings with
respect to claim 7.
4 Appellant does not dispute the remainder of the Examiner’s findings with
respect to claim 13.
Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

5
Notwithstanding that the claims do not contain the term “same”,
Appellant argue that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 7 and
13 requires the construction urged by Appellant that the cooling tunnels of
claim 7 be against the “same” end face (Reply Br. 2, Appeal Br. 4) and that
the cooling tunnel portion and cooling trough portions be sealed against the
“same” end face (Reply Br. 2, Appeal Br. 5). We do not agree.
Each of claims 7 and 13 is open-ended, permitting other structural
elements therein, as each contains the open-ended transitional word
“comprising”. Each claim recites “a stator having a core having an end
face” in the body of the claim. It has been established that “[a]s a general
rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or
more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are
extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to
‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even, when
as here, a subsequent use of the definite article occurs, “‘the’ or ‘said’ in a
claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural
rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.” Id. The only
exception to this general rule arises “where the language of the claims
themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a
departure from the rule.” Id. at 1342-43. See also Communique Lab., Inc. v.
LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Circ. 2012)(reaffirming that “a” or “an”
in a patent claim means one or more).
Thus, “a stator having a core having an end face” encompasses a core
having one or more end faces. Notably, the Examiner points out that
Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

6
Appellant’s described embodiments are not limited to the constructions
urged by Appellant with respect to the “same” end face (e.g., Ans. 6, 9, 10).
The Examiner explains that the language as recited in claims 7 and 13, when
interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification and the figures in the
Drawings, reasonably encompasses various embodiments of Adaniya’s
(Ans. 4–10). Appellant’s Specification contains no limiting or special
definition of “an end face”, such that it reasonably encompasses plural end
faces. Indeed, as pointed out by the Examiner, the Drawings illustrate in
Appellant’s Fig. 5 a cooling tunnel at each of two opposing axial end faces
(reproduced at Ans. 6). Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of “a plurality
of cooling tunnels encasing the end windings, sealing against the end face”
in claim 7 reasonably encompasses Adaniya’s cooling tunnels/heat
absorbing jackets 10, 11 as these jackets are “fixed to the stator core 7 on the
opposite axial ends thereof” (Adaniya ¶¶ 29, 42; Ans. 9, 10). Likewise, the
Examiner’s interpretation of “sealing against the end face” in claim 13
reasonably encompasses the sealing of Adaniya’s troughs/tunnels/heat
absorbing jackets 10, 11 as these jackets are “fixed to the stator core 7 on the
opposite axial ends thereof” (Adaniya ¶¶ 29, 42; Ans. 9, 10).
Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
argued claim terms, we agree with the Examiner that the respective
embodiments of Adaniya as detailed by the Examiner are encompassed by
the claim language (Ans. 4–10). Accordingly, Appellant does not provide
any persuasive reasoning or evidence that the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation based on Adaniya is unreasonable.
Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

7
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s § 102
rejection of claims 7 and 13 and their dependent claims not separately
argued, and also the § 103 rejection including separately rejected claim 10.
The only dispute with claim 1 (as well as claims dependent thereon)
is whether the Examiner’s obviousness determination for the “arcuate cross-
section” shape of the cooling tunnel recited therein is in error. A
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s obviousness
determination for the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 6; Ans.
12 (pointing out that Appellant does not fully address the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection that relies upon, e.g., Figs 4B, 4C of Takahashi to
exemplify that arcuate shaped cooling conduits are known)). Appellant has
failed to show any reversible error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly we sustain all of the Examiner’s rejections of the claims
on appeal.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–9, 12–16, 18 102 Adaniya 7–9, 12–16, 18

1–4, 11, 17 103 Adaniya, Takahashi
1–4, 11,
17

10 103 Adaniya, Matsui 10
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–18

Appeal 2019-005840
Application 15/137,182

8
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED