Hirotsugu Yamamoto

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14760768 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/760,768 07/14/2015 Hirotsugu YAMAMOTO P48215 9820
7055 7590 08/21/2019
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HIROTSUGU YAMAMOTO
____________

Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,
and MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed July 14, 2015 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action
dated Jan. 31, 2018 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 22, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated July 2, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply
Brief filed Aug. 29, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
2
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1–17, which are all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a resolver that detects a rotational
angle and, in particular, to a structure of a stator that has a cover that protects
a winding part and a connecting wire part of the resolver. Spec. ¶ 1; Fig. 2.
The claimed stator has an annular core having teeth, an insulator that covers
a part of the core, windings wound around the teeth with the insulator
interposed therebetween, and a cover that covers the windings and
connecting wires that are extensions of the windings. Spec. ¶ 8; Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A stator of a resolver, comprising:
a core having an annular shape and a plurality of teeth
protruded from an inner circumferential surface or an
outer circumferential surface of the core along a
circumference thereof;
an insulator that has an annular shape and covers a
part of the core;
windings wound around the teeth with the insulator
interposed therebetween; and

2 Appellant is the Applicant, Japan Aviation Electronics Industry, Limited
(Bib. Data Sheet 1), which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party
in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
3
a cover that has an annular shape and covers the
windings and connecting wires that are extensions of the
windings,
wherein the insulator comprises winding parts around
each of which the windings are wound, a connecting wire
part having an annular shape and on which the connecting
wires are disposed, a barrier wall provided on a side of the
connecting wire part opposite to the winding parts, a
plurality of island parts formed along a circumference
thereof on a side of the barrier wall opposite to the
connecting wire part, and a positioning projection part
being formed on each of the island parts,
the cover being divided into a plurality of cover
sections that are arranged along a circumferential
direction so as to form the cover,
each of the cover sections has a protrusion part that
corresponds to one of the island parts, and the protrusion
part is welded and fixed to the one of the island parts, and
each of the cover sections is positioned with a
positioning recess formed in the protrusion part being
fitted onto the positioning projection part and a side wall
thereof being interposed between the barrier wall and the
positioning projection part.
Appeal Br. 17 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kato et al. (“Kato”) US 5,562,466 Oct. 8, 1996
Miya et al. (“Miya”) US 2004/0119350 A1 June 24, 2004
Utsumi et al. (“Utsumi”) US 2005/0280320 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
Kataoka et al. (“Kataoka”) US 2008/0169714 A1 July 17, 2008
Seki et al. (“Seki”) US 2013/0200742 A1 Aug. 8, 2013

Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
4
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Utsumi in view of Miya, and further in
view of Seki (“Rejection 1”).
2. Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Utsumi in view of Miya and Seki, and
further in view of Kato (“Rejection 2”).
3. Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Utsumi in view of Miya and Seki, and
further in view of Kataoka (“Rejection 3”).
4. Claims 12–15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Utsumi in view of Miya, Seki and Kato, and further
in view of Kataoka (“Rejection 4”).
5. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Utsumi in view of Miya and Seki
(“Rejection 5”).
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner determines that the combination of Utsumi, Miya, and
Seki suggests a stator satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and, thus,
concludes that the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Ans. 3–6.
Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
5
The Examiner finds that the combination of Utsumi and Miya teaches
or suggests the majority of the limitations of claim 1, but it does not teach or
suggest “a cover that has an annular shape” and “the cover being divided
into a plurality of cover sections that are arranged along a circumferential
direction so as to form the cover,” as recited in the claim. Id. at 6.
The Examiner, however, relies on Seki for teaching these elements of
the claim. Id. at 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Seki teaches a
cover (Seki, Fig. 22A (element 320)) and the cover being divided into a
plurality of cover sections (id. at Fig. 21 (elements 314)) that are arranged
along a circumferential direction so as to form the cover in the manner
claimed. Id. at 6; see also Ans. 4–5 (citing Seki, Figs. 1, 21, 22, 52, ¶ 300).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest “a cover that has an
annular shape and covers the windings and connecting wires that are
extensions of the windings” and “the cover being divided into a plurality of
cover sections that are arranged along a circumferential direction so as to
form the cover,” as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4–7.
In particular, Appellant contends that
in Seki, the element denoted by the reference numeral 320
is in fact a stator core, and the elements denoted by the
reference numeral 314 are core configuration sections of
the core, not a cover.
Appeal Br. 11 (citing Seki ¶ 297); see, e.g., Seki, Figs. 21, 22A.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the cited art teaches or suggests “a cover
that has an annular shape” and “the cover being divided into a plurality of
Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
6
cover sections that are arranged along a circumferential direction so as to
form the cover,” as required by claim 1. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that the examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness).
None of the portions of Seki that the Examiner relies upon in the
rejection teach or suggest “a cover that has an annular shape” and “the cover
being divided into a plurality of cover sections,” as recited in the claim. See
Figs. 1, 21 (element 314), 22A (element 320), 52, ¶ 300. Rather, as
Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 11) and contrary to the
Examiner’s rejection, Seki teaches that element 320 of Figure 22A is a
“stator core” and elements 314 of Figure 21 are “core configuration
sections”––and not a “cover” that has an annular shape and being divided
into a plurality of cover sections, as claimed. See Seki ¶ 297 (disclosing that
“[t]he plural core configuration sections 314U configure a stator core 320
together with plural V-phase core configuration sections 314V and plural W-
phase core configuration sections 314W).
There is no teaching or suggestion in Seki that the stator core 320 is or
would have been considered by one of ordinary skill to be a “cover” and the
core configuration sections 314 are or would have been considered by one of
ordinary skill to be “a plurality of cover sections,” as claimed. Moreover,
the Examiner does not identify sufficient evidence or persuasively explain
how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Seki’s
stator core 320 and core configuration sections 314 as corresponding,
respectively, to these elements of the claim.

Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
7
The Examiner also does not identify evidence or provide reasoning
sufficient to support a finding that one of ordinary skill would have had
reason to modify modified-Utsumi’s stator to include “a cover that has an
annular shape” and “the cover being divided into a plurality of cover
sections,” as would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring “reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s statements at page 6 of the Final Office Action and
pages 4–5 of the Answer, without more, are not persuasive because the
Examiner does not adequately explain why Seki’s disclosures regarding a
stator core 320 and core configuration sections 314 would have led one of
ordinary skill to the claimed invention. See Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC,
805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a
skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to
make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention.”) (emphasis in original). The Examiner does not meaningfully
address Appellant’s principal argument that Seki’s stator core 320 is not a
cover and core configuration sections 314 are not a plurality of cover
sections.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of Utsumi, Miya, and Seki teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1. Because claims 2 and 7 depend from claim 1 and
claim 3 recites the same “a cover that has an annular shape” and “the cover
being divided into a plurality of cover sections that are arranged along a
Appeal 2018-008522
Application 14/760,768
8
circumferential direction” limitations as claim 1, we also cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Utsumi, Miya,
and Seki.
Rejections 2, 3, 4, and 5
The foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner’s analysis and conclusion
regarding Rejection 1 and the combination of Utsumi, Miya, and Seki are
not remedied by the Examiner’s findings regarding the additional references
or combination of references cited in support of the second, third, fourth, and
fifth grounds of rejection.
Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner’s Rejections 2, 3, 4, and 5.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–17 are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED