Ex Parte Alvarez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11409442 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

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. 11/409,442 04/21/2006 Francesc Cruellas Alvarez 930024-2049 2530 20999 7590 11/30/2012 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG 745 FIFTH AVENUE- 10TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 10151 EXAMINER MOK, ALEX W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte FRANCESC CRUELLAS ALVAREZ and IVAN FLOTATS GIRALT ____________________ Appeal 2010-007467 Application 11/409,442 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007467 Application 11/409,442 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10. The claims are directed to a system for securing permanent magnets to a disk-shaped rotor of a servomotor. Spec. 1:1-6. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Alternating-current-synchronous-servomotor having a diskshaped rotor which is located between two stator halves of which each is provided with a bearing for a shaft supporting the rotor and comprise each a magnet iron part having a plurality of radial grooves and an electrical coil having leads inserted in the radial grooves, which rotor comprises an even number of flat permanent magnets pieces having magnet field lines extending parallel to the shaft, which permanent magnet pieces form an annular like series including interstices extending around a hub supported on the shaft and of a magnetically non-conductive material and have flat sides acting as magnetic pole surfaces (N, S) which extend in parallel planes to which the axis of the shaft extend perpendicularly and are serially alternating north and south poles, and whereby the interstices between adjacent permanent magnet pieces diverge radially towards the outside, the outer periphery of the hub comprising planes extending along the sides of a regular polygon and edges located therebetween, and the permanent magnet pieces have limiting surfaces located radially inwards, which are supported each on one of the peripheral planes of the hub, wherein said planes and said limiting surfaces comprise cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes, said cooperating means for fixing said magnet pieces on said hub, wherein said cooperating means engage said magnet pieces against the hub in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes. Appeal 2010-007467 Application 11/409,442 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-4 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hermann (US 4,629,920, Dec. 16, 1986) and Furukawa (JP 2001346345 A, Dec. 14, 2001). Ans. 3-6. Claim 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hermann, Furukawa and Anwander (US 6,812,609, Nov. 2, 2004). Ans. 5-6. Claim 5-7 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hermann, Furukawa and Kober (US 2,767,368, Oct. 16, 1956). Ans. 6. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Furukawa teaches or suggests teach “planes and . . . limiting surfaces compris[ing] cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes” as required in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that “Furukawa does not teach planes and . . . limiting surfaces compris[ing] cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 13, 14-15. Appellants essentially argue that the surfaces identified in Furukawa include planes that are not perpendicular to the core of the rotor, as surfaces 5A and 6A on the core and surfaces 3A and 3C on the magnet in Furukawa are inwardly divergent. App. Br. 14-15. The Examiner responds that “[w]hile Furukawa may not have these surfaces [3A and 3C in Furukawa Fig. 2] being perpendicular to the peripheral of the core, these surfaces do not individually serve as the claimed Appeal 2010-007467 Application 11/409,442 4 ‘cooperating means’” required in claim 1. Ans. 7. Instead, the Examiner’s Answer identifies “grooves in the rotor core along with the dovetail part of the magnet [that] would constitute the ‘cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular’ to the peripheral planes.” Id. The Examiner argues that 5A and 6A collectively form the grooves in the rotor. Id. (citing Furukawa, Fig. 1). These grooves are identified by the Examiner as “extending in a perpendicular direction to the peripheral of the core.” Id. The collective parts of the magnet, 3A and 3C, compose “the disclosed dovetail part of the magnet, which is enclosed partly by surface 3C (see figure 2 of Furukawa)” and this dovetail portion extends “perpendicularly to the peripheral of the core, as shown in figures 1-3” of Furukawa. Id. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner collectively points to the “grooves in the rotor core along with the dovetail portion of the magnet” as forming the cooperating means, but has failed to adequately identify which planes extend perpendicularly to the peripheral planes. It is unclear from the Examiner’s rejection and Answer how the grooves in the rotor core form the planes that are perpendicular to the core. The Examiner admits that Furukawa does not show surfaces 3A and 3C being perpendicular to the peripheral of the core. Ans. 7. Furukawa describes the magnets as being held in place by the wedge effect. See Furukawa, Basic-Abstract: Novelty. We note that Furukawa also describes the groove in the rotor as “extending axially along the periphery of the core surface.” Id. The Examiner has not adequately shown that 5A and 6A of Furukawa figure 2 form the peripheral planes of the hub as required in claim 1. We disagree with the Examiner that the grooves and magnets together or separately form “cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes.” See Reply Br. 6. Appeal 2010-007467 Application 11/409,442 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner erred in finding that Furukawa teaches or suggests “planes and . . . limiting surfaces compris[ing] cooperating means extending in a plane perpendicular to said peripheral planes” as required in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-10. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 is REVERSED. REVERSED ke