Makoto Taniguchi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2020

14101391 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 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.
14/101,391 12/10/2013 Makoto TANIGUCHI RYM-2018-3303 4650
23117 7590 01/15/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
ALMAWRI, MAGED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAKOTO TANIGUCHI and HIROKI TOMIZAWA
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Denso. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to rotors and rotating electric
machines containing such rotors. See Claims 1, 2, 12; Spec. 1:9–10.
The Specification indicates that an object of the invention is to reduce
the cogging torque of the rotating electric machine, which contains a rotor
boss, a plurality of soft magnetic material poles and magnetic poles
extending radially outward from the rotor boss, with the soft magnetic
material poles separated from the magnetic poles by a circumferential gap.
Spec. 2:29–30.
Figure 3 of the Drawings is illustrative:

Figure 3 depicts rotor 40 including a rotation shaft 41, plural soft
magnetic material poles 43, plural magnet poles 45, plural permanent
magnets 48, and plural circumferential gaps 55 separating the plurality of
soft magnetic poles 43 and magnet poles 45. Spec. 5:20–31; 6:26–29.
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391

3
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with the dispositive limitation on appeal italicized:
1. A rotor for a rotating electric machine comprising:
a rotor boss having a plurality of soft magnetic material
poles extending radially outward from the rotor boss;
a plurality of magnetic poles extending radially outward
from the rotor boss and separated from the plurality of soft
magnetic material poles by a circumferential gap; and
a permanent magnet that is buried in each of the plurality
of magnetic poles, wherein d0 is defined as a product of a radial
thickness of the permanent magnet in millimeters and a number
(p) of soft magnetic material poles,
w0 is defined as a product of a circumferential width of
each soft magnetic material pole extending radially outward from
the rotor boss in millimeters and the number of soft magnetic
material poles, and 360 millimeters ≤(w02/ d0)≤ 400 millimeters.
Appeal Br. 16.
II. REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kawabata US 5,631,512 May 20, 1997
Nagate US 5,679,995 Oct. 12, 1997
Niguchi US 2007/0273241 A1 Nov. 29, 2007
Okumoto US 2009/0134731 A1 May 28, 2009
Yamada US 2010/0308680 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
III. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
I. Claims 1 and 12 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Okumoto, Nagate, and Kawabata;
II. Claims 2, 3, and 6–9 as unpatentable over Okumoto, Nagate,
Kawabata, and Yamada; and
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391

4
III. Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Okumoto, Nagate,
Kawabata, Yamada, and Niguchi.
IV. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Okumoto discloses each of the elements
recited in independent claims 1 and 12, except for the claimed requirements
that: 1) a plurality of magnetic poles is separated from the plurality of soft
magnetic material poles by a circumferential gap; 2) the permanent magnet
is buried in each of the plurality of magnetic poles; and 3) the relationship
between w02/d0. Final Act. 10.
The Examiner addresses differences 1) and 2) by relying on Nagate,
and difference 3) by relying on Kawabata. Id. Specifically, regarding
difference 1), the Examiner finds that Nagate discloses a circumferential gap
as recited in claim 1, and that the skilled artisan would have been motivated
to include such a gap in the rotor of Okumoto “to ease manufacturing direct
magnetic flux, and positioning of the [p]ermanent [m]agnet[,] minimize
vibration effect[,] provide structural support for the magnets and provide
high performance.” Id. at 10 (citing Nagate 5:1–65).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s proffered basis for
modifying Okumoto with that of Nagate to provide circumferential gaps is
erroneous. Appeal Br. 11–12. Specifically, Appellant contends that because
“the alleged circumferential gap in Nagate is not even recognized by Nagate
as having any function or benefit,” the skilled artisan “would not have been
motivated to modify Okumoto to include the alleged circumferential gap
from Nagate.” Id. at 12.
Upon consulting the cited portion of Nagate relied on by the
Examiner, we agree with Appellant that there is no apparent recognition of
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391

5
any function or benefit being attributed to the “gap” of Nagate. Indeed,
Appellant correctly observes that the “gap” disclosed in Nagate at column 5,
lines 39–40 may be a reference to gaps 8a–8d of Figure 11 used to connect
the steel sheets––not the “gap” identified by the Examiner in annotated
Figure 2. Final Act. 13; Appeal Br. 12; Nagate 5:39–40; 7:48–49; 12:6–23.
Here, we note that the “gap” identified in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 2
does not appear to be referred to as a “gap” in Nagate. Ans. 13. Rather, the
contour of what the Examiner refers to as a “gap” is identified as element
10––which Nagate states is a “bridge.” See Nagate 8:6–14.
In any event, the Examiner’s vague reference to Nagate’s entire
column 5, coupled with the lack of explanation regarding how the alleged
“gap” identified in annotated Figure 2 achieves the purported benefits, is
insufficient to establish a reason to modify Okumoto’s rotor with the
claimed circumferential gap. The Examiner’s response in the Examiner’s
Answer fares no better on this point because it alleges “better accuracy,”
again, with no explanation how that benefit is achieved by the alleged “gap.”
Ans. 15 (citing Nagate 4:43–46). Here, we agree with Appellant (Reply
Br. 5) that this additional portion of Nagate “does not include any discussion
of accuracy or detecting position of a magnetic pole, and certainly does not
attribute such benefits to a circumferential gap.”
Because all independent claims 1, 2, and 12 require a circumferential
gap between the plurality of magnetic poles and the soft material magnetic
poles, and because the Examiner has not established that the skilled artisan
would have had a reason to modify Okumoto’s rotor to contain such a gap,
we reverse all of the rejections on appeal.
Appeal 2018-008611
Application 14/101,391

6
V. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
VI. DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 12 103(a) Okumoto, Nagate,
Kawabata
1, 12
2, 3, 6–9 103(a) Okumoto, Nagate,
Kawabata, Yamada
2, 3, 6–9
4, 5, 10, 11 103(a) Okumto, Nagate,
Kawabata, Yamada,
Niguchi
4, 5, 10, 11

REVERSED