Globe Motors, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2019004846 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/139,393 04/27/2016 Jerry C. Burch GLB 082 PA 9988
29673 7590 09/02/2020
STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
ANDREWS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte JERRY C. BURCH, JAMES W. MORAN, and ALLEN ABEL
____________
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before JULIA HEANEY, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–17, and 19–26 of Application
15/139,393. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
15/139,393 filed Apr. 27, 2016 (“’393 App.”); the Final Office Action dated
Sept. 21, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated Nov. 30, 2018
(“Advisory Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 1, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed
May 31, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Globe
Motors, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ’393 Application relates to a wound stator for a dynamo-electric
machine. Spec. 1, ll. 26–27. The invention electrically isolates the windings
from the stator core through complete phase-to-phase isolation between
windings or turn-to-turn isolation between adjacent turns forming the
windings. Spec. 6, ll. 22–25.
The stator core of the wound stator is an integral preformed structure
comprising a unitary cylindrical yoke and having a plurality of radially
inward extending stator teeth formed integrally with the yoke. Spec. 6, ll.
27–29. The stator teeth are spaced circumferentially and define
circumferentially distributed stator slots. Spec. 6, l. 29–7, l. 1. The stator
windings are formed around the stator teeth and into the slots. Spec. 7, ll. 1–
2. Isolation between windings is accomplished without adding insulation on
the wire or otherwise altering the structure of the wire to increase insulating
properties of the wire. Spec. 7, ll. 2–4.
Fig. 1 of the ’393 Application is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
3
Fig. 1 is an exploded perspective view of a stator core (10), insert
members (16), and top (20a) and bottom (20b) end laminae in accordance
with the invention. Spec. 5, ll. 11–12; 12, ll. 4–6. Stator core (10)
comprises a unitary cylindrical yoke forming an outer peripheral wall
structure and a plurality of radially inward extending stator teeth (12)
defining axially extending stator slots therebetween. Spec. 7, ll. 14–17.
An insulation system is mounted to stator core (10). The insulation
system includes insulating structure (15) adapted to extend into stator slots
and top and bottom laminae. Spec. 7, ll. 20–24. Insulating structure (15) is
formed by insert members (16) that further function as wire guides to
facilitate placement of wire in stator slots. Spec. 7, ll. 24–26.
The ’393 Application’s FIG. 4A is reproduced below:

FIG. 4A is a perspective end view of a stator assembly comprising
insert members (16) inserted into stator slots and including a top end lamina
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
4
positioned on the end of the stator. Spec. 5, ll. 16–18. Insert members (16)
completely fill a stator slot and may form a predefined axial path through
stator core (10) for each of the wire passes through a stator slot during
formation of turns forming a wire winding on stator core (10). Spec. 8, ll. 4–
7.
Claim 1, reproduced below from Claims Appendix A of the Appeal
Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A wound stator for a dynamo-electric machine
comprising:
a stator stack comprising a unitary cylindrical yoke and a
plurality of circumferentially spaced, radially inward extending
stator teeth defining stator slots therebetween;
a winding formed by a continuous strand of wire of a
predetermined gauge forming a plurality of turns around each
stator tooth and defined by wire passes extending through the
slots and connected by bent portions of the continuous strand of
wire forming end turns, each winding including a first lead end
extending from a stator slot on a first side of a respective stator
tooth and a second lead end extending from a stator slot on a
second side of the respective stator tooth; and
an insulation system including an insulating structure
extending through each stator slot between windings located on
two adjacent stator teeth, the turns of each winding located
between a respective stator tooth and a first surface of the
insulating structure engaged with the winding.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
5
Name Reference Date
Harada et al.
(“Harada”)
US 2009/0096313 A1 Apr. 16, 2009
Rhoads US 2011/0095641 A1 Apr. 28, 2011
Stark et al. (“Stark”) US 2011/0115317 A1 May 19, 2011
Takahashi US 2014/0292119 A1 Oct. 2, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103: (1) claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 14–17, 21, and 24–26 over Harada in view
of Takahashi; (2) claims 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 22, and 23 over Harada and
Takahashi, and further in view of Rhoads; and (3) claims 13, 19, and 20 over
Harada and Takahashi, and further in view of Stark. Final Act. 4–17.
DISCUSSION
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 (BPAI 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 [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
The Examiner rejects all of the claims as obvious over at least Harada
in view of Takahashi. Final Act. 4–17.
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 2–5, 7–17, and 19–26 “for
the same reasons as discussed” regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–13
(independent claims 14 and 24 patentable “for the same reasons as discussed
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
6
with regard to independent claim 1” and dependent claims patentable based
on their dependence from patentable claims). Independent claims 1 and 14
recite “a continuous strand of wire of a predetermined gauge forming a
plurality of turns around each stator tooth and defined by wire passes
extending through the slots and connected by bent portions of the continuous
strand of wire forming end turns.” Appeal Br. 14–16. Similarly,
independent claim 24 recites “at least one continuous strand of wire of a
predetermined gauge forming a winding having a plurality of turns defined
by wire passes extending through the slots on either side of a stator tooth and
connected by bent portions of the continuous strand of wire forming end
turns.” Id. at 17.
We select independent claim 1 as representative of the claims subject
to the first ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 42.37(c)(1)(iv). We also
consider these arguments to the extent applicable to the claims subject to the
remaining grounds of rejection.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Harada teaches most
of the limitations, but does not teach a “winding formed by a continuous
strand of wire defined by wire passes extending through the slots and
connected by bent portions of the continuous strand of wire forming end
turns.” Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses
this limitation. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the
winding of Harada from a continuous strand of wire, as taught by Takahashi,
in order to reduce the axial height of the end turns thereby reducing the
overall size of the motor. Id. (citing Takahashi ¶ 74).
In the Answer the Examiner explains that Harada is cited as teaching a
winding formed by a strand of wire of a predetermined gauge forming a
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
7
plurality of turns around each stator tooth. Ans. 4. The Examiner states that
Takahashi was not cited for disclosing the coil-type windings implied by the
“continuous strand of wire forming a plurality of turns around a stator tooth”
limitation. Id. at 3–4.
Appellant argues that neither Harada nor Takahashi discloses “a
continuous strand of wire forming a plurality of turns around each stator
tooth.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that Takahashi instead discloses a
plurality of conductor wires wound about a stator core in wave winding. Id.
at 8 (citing Takahashi ¶ 65 and Figs. 9–11); Reply Br. 8. Appellant contends
that Takahashi teaches different conductor wires are located side-by-side in
each slot, rather than a continuous strand of wire forming a plurality of turns
around a stator tooth. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 9.
Appellant identifies reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 over
Harada in view of Takahashi.
The Examiner states that element 108 of Harada is a winding formed
by a strand of wire forming a plurality of turns around each stator tooth.
Ans. 4. Harada Fig. 4 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
8

Harada Fig. 4 is a view showing a step of fabricating a coil plate
laminated body. Harada ¶ 40. A coil plate laminated body is formed by
plurality of coil plates (138) inserted into resin insulator (140) in a
longitudinal direction of resin insulator (140) to fabricate coil sub-assembly
(108). Insulating plate (142) is formed at a center portion of resin insulator
(140). Harada ¶ 79.
As shown in Harada Fig. 7, infra, coil sub-assembly (108) is inserted
into a slot between two teeth in a stator core.
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
9

Harada Fig. 7 is a view showing a step of incorporating coil sub-
assembly (108) into slot (106) in stator core (102). Harada ¶¶ 43, 88. Upper
and lower transition member laminated bodies (110 and 112) are then
inserted between two coil subassemblies (108), as shown in Harada Fig. 9:

Harada Fig. 9 is a view showing a step of inserting a transition
member laminated body (112) between two coil sub-assemblies ((108) in a
stator core. Harada ¶¶ 45, 92. Transition member laminated body (112) is
incorporated into the upper portion of tooth (104) and transition member
laminated body (110, not shown) is incorporated into the lower portion of
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
10
tooth (104) so as to connect between coil plate laminated bodies (138 and
144) inserted into the sides of tooth (104). Harada ¶ 92.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that element (108) of
Harada is a winding formed by a strand of wire forming a plurality of turns
around each stator tooth. See Ans. 4. Harada’s coil sub-assembly (108) is
made up of straight coil plates (138) that extend out of the top and through
the bottom of stator core (102), and do not form any turns around a stator
tooth. See Harada Fig. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–3. At most, Harada teaches
insertion of straight coil plates (138 and 144) into the stator core, that
assembly of separate, straight upper and lower transition member laminated
bodies (110 and 112) at the ends of the stator core. Thus, contrary to the
Examiner’s finding, Harada does not disclose “a winding formed by a strand
of wire of a predetermined gauge forming a plurality of turns around each
stator tooth and defined by wire passes extending through the slots and end
turns, each winding including a first lead end extending from a stator slot on
a first side of a respective stator tooth and a second lead end extending from
a stator slot on a second side of the respective stator tooth.” See Final Act.
5.
Takahashi, cited only for reciting “a continuous stand of wire” (see
Ans. 3–4), does not rectify the lack of teaching in Harada of “a plurality of
turns around each stator tooth.” See Takahashi Fig. 10, ¶ 65. Takahashi’s
disclosure of “wave winding” shows that the continuous strand of wire is
woven over one stator tooth, then under the next, and so on. Id. Fig. 10.
We also agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would not have combined the teachings of Harada and
Takahshi to achieve the claimed device. See Appeal Br. 9–11. The
Examiner fails to explain how the skilled artisan could have employed
Appeal 2019-004846
Application 15/139,393
11
Takahashi’s continuous wave winding in the Harada’s structure, which
requires assembly of multiple different preformed pieces, not a continuous
piece. See Reply Br. 3.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 10,
12, 14–17,
21, 24–26
103
Harada, Takahashi

1, 2, 7, 10,
12, 14–17,
21, 24–26
3–5, 8, 9,
11, 22, 23 103
Harada, Takahashi,
Rhoads
3–5, 8, 9, 11,
22, 23
13, 19, 20 103 Harada, Takahashi, Stark 13, 19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–17, 19–26
REVERSED