Ex Parte Desai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2018

12758967 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121758,967 04/13/2010 55409 7590 05/31/2018 TEMMERMAN LAW OFFICE MATHEW J. TEMMERMAN ONE MARKET STREET SPEAR TOWER, 36TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Piyush C. Desai 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 414.00 6036 EXAMINER JOHNSON, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): MATHEW@TEMMERMANLA W.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PIYUSH C. DESAI, ALI EMADI, and UMAMAHESHWAR KRISHNAMURTHY Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BRIAND. RANGE, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from an Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, 27, 30, 31, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Independent claim 1 is directed to a switched reluctance machine (SRM) comprising a first rotor comprising a set of rotor poles and a stator comprising a set of stator poles, wherein the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles have a specific numerical relationship. The stator comprises first and second surfaces, Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 and the first rotor comprises a rotor surface facing the first stator surface. The machine also comprises a second rotor having a second rotor surface facing the second stator surface, wherein a second set of rotor poles projects from the second rotor surface. Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated April 25, 2016 ("Br."). 1. A switched reluctance machine comprising: a rotor arranged to rotate about a central axis, the rotor comprising a set of rotor poles; a stator positioned about the central axis and laterally adjacent and axial to the rotor, the stator comprising a set of stator poles adjacent the set of rotor poles and spaced from the set of rotor poles by an axial gap; and wherein the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles are in a numerical relationship defined by the formula: number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator poles (S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S> 4, wherein the stator further comprises a first stator surface and the rotor further comprises a rotor surface, the rotor surface positioned generally parallel to and facing the first stator surface, each of the first stator surface and the rotor surface facing a direction that is generally parallel with the central axis, wherein the stator further comprises a second stator surface on an opposite side from, and generally parallel to, the first stator surface, and the switched reluctance machine further compnsmg: a second rotor arranged to rotate about the central axle, the second rotor including a second rotor surface positioned generally parallel to and facing the second stator surface, the second rotor further comprising a second set of rotor poles projecting from the second rotor surface. The switched reluctance machine recited in claim 27 comprises a first stator comprising a first set of stator poles, a second stator comprising a second set of 2 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 stator poles, and a rotor. The rotor comprises a set of rotor poles that is (1) adjacent the first set of stator poles and (2) adjacent the second set of stator poles, wherein the set of rotor poles has a specific numerical relationship with at least one of the first or second set of stator poles. Brief. Claim 27 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal 27. A switched reluctance machine comprising: a first stator positioned about a central axis and having a first lateral stator surface, the first stator comprising a first set of stator poles; a second stator positioned about the central axis and having a second lateral stator surface, the second stator comprising a second set of stator poles; a rotor arranged to rotate about the central axis, the rotor comprising a first lateral rotor surface facing the first lateral stator surface, a second lateral rotor surface facing the second lateral stator surface, and a set of rotor poles adjacent the first set of stator poles and spaced from the first set of stator poles by a first axial gap and adjacent the second set of stator poles spaced from the second set of stator poles by a second axial gap, wherein each of the first lateral stator surface and the second lateral stator surface faces a direction that is generally parallel with the central axis; wherein the set of rotor poles is in a numerical relationship with at least one of the first or second set of stator poles, the numerical relationship defined by the formula: number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator poles (S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S > 4. The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: (1) claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, 27, 30, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, based on the enablement requirement; 3 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 (2) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, based on the written description requirement; (3) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite; (4) claims 1, 3, 5-9, 14, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Antonopoulos et al. 1 in view of Desai et al. 2 and Cho; 3 and (5) claims 27, 30, and 31under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Daldaban et al. 4 in view of Desai. The rejections on appeal are sustained for the reasons provided in the Non- Final Office Action dated June 2, 2015 ("Non-Final Act.") and the Examiner's Answer dated October 5, 2016 ("Ans."). We add the following for emphasis. B. DISCUSSION 1. Rejections ( 1 }--{3) The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual findings as to rejections (1 }-(3) or legal conclusions as to rejections (2) and (3). See Br. 5 (generally contending that claims 1, 3, 5-9, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33 are patentable underÂ§ 112, first paragraph). 5 Therefore, rejections (1 }-(3) are sustained for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 3---6 of the Non-Final Office Action. 1 US 2004/0217668 Al, published November 4, 2004 ("Antonopoulos"). 2 US 7,230,360 B2, issued June 12, 2007 ("Desai"). 3 US 2006/0071576 Al, published April 6, 2006 ("Cho"). 4 Ferhat Daldaban & Nurettin Ustkoyuncu, New disc type switched reluctance motor for high torque density, 48 Energy Conversion & Mgmt. 2424--2431 (2007) ("Daldaban"). 5 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. Therefore, we refer to the page numbers of the Appeal Brief that are automatically generated in the Official file of the instant Application. 4 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 2. Rejection (4) The Examiner finds Antonopoulos discloses a switched reluctance machine comprising a rotor and a stator, each having a set of poles, oriented as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds Antonopoulos does not disclose that "the set of rotor poles and the set of stator poles are in a numerical relationship defined by the formula: number of rotor poles (R) = (2 times the number of stator poles (S)) minus 2, or R = 2S - 2, where S > 4" as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner, however, finds Desai discloses the claimed numerical relationship. Non-Final Act. 8; see also Desai, col. 1, 11. 45-55. The Examiner also finds the combination of Antonopoulos and Desai does not disclose a second rotor that includes "a second rotor surface positioned generally parallel to and facing the second stator surface, the second rotor further comprising a set of rotor poles projecting from the second rotor surface" as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner, however, finds Cho discloses that adding additional stator frames and rotor frames increases the torque of a machine. Non-Final Act. 9 (citing Cho i-f 31 ). Based on that teaching in Cho, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add additional stator and rotor portions to Antonopoulos' modified machine to increase the torque thereof. Non-Final Act. 9. The Appellants argue that the claimed "SRM can include a rotor positioned between a pair of stators that rotate about an axis unlike in Desai." Br. 8. Thus, when the mirroring concept is included, the Appellants argue that the number of rotor poles in the claimed invention is higher than R = 2S-2. Br. 9. 5 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 The Appellants' argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art). The Examiner relies on Desai to show the claimed numerical relationship. Ans. 2-3. In particular, Desai discloses: [T[he present invention provides a SRM having a salient rotor and stator pole numerical relationship of S number of stator poles, where S>4, and R number of rotor poles, which can be expressed as R=2S-2, such as a S/R pole count in a 6/10, 8/14, or 10/18 configuration. Desai, col. 1, 11. 51-55. The Examiner relies on Cho to show that adding additional stator frames and rotor frames increases the torque of a machine. Ans. 2, 4--5. The Examiner finds: [E]mploying the configuration as shown by Cho in fig. 8c with the machine of Antonopoulos in view of Desai results in ... a second rotor arranged to rotate about the central axle, the second rotor including a second rotor surface positioned generally parallel to and facing the second stator surface, the second rotor further comprising a set of rotor poles projecting from the second rotor surface .... Non-Final Act. 9; see also Non-Final Act. 10 (annotated Cho Fig. 8c). Thus, like the Appellants' invention, when a second rotor is added to the machine of Antonopoulos, as modified by Desai and Cho, the number of rotor poles will increase. 6 See Ans. 3. The Appellants have failed to establish otherwise. The Appellants also argue that "the concept of pole formation in the SRM is explained differently than a permanent magnet machine as in Cho because of its double saliency." Br. 9. The Appellants, however, do not direct us to any credible evidence showing that the alleged difference between the machines of 6 We note that the total number of rotor poles is not recited in claim 1. 6 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 Antonopoulos and Cho would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying Antonopoulos' machine with a second rotor as proposed by the Examiner. Likewise, the Appellants have failed to show that the addition of additional stator frames and rotor frames, as disclosed in Cho, would not have been expected to successfully increase the torque in Antonopoulos' modified SRM, as found by the Examiner. See Ans. 5. In sum, theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of dependent claims 3, 5-9, 14, or 33. Therefore, theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 5-9, 14, and 33 also is sustained. 5. Rejection (5) The Examiner finds Daldaban discloses a switched reluctance machine comprising, inter alia, first and second stators. Non-Final 13. The Appellants recognize as much but argue that Daldaban does not teach a double rotor structure. Br. 11. The Examiner concludes that claim 27 does not recite a double rotor structure. Non-Final 18; Ans. 5. Mirroring the language of claim 27, the Examiner finds Daldaban discloses: a rotor ... arranged to rotate about a central axis ... , the rotor comprising a first lateral rotor surface ... facing the first stator surface ... , a second lateral rotor surface ... facing the second lateral stator surface ... , and a set of rotor poles ... adjacent the first set of stator poles ... and spaced apart from the first set of stator poles by a first axial gap ... and adjacent the second set of stator poles ... spaced from the second set of stator poles by a second axial gap ... , wherein each of the first lateral stator surface and the second lateral stator surface faces a direction that is generally parallel with the central axis .... Non-Final 13-14 (emphasis added). 7 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 The Examiner provides an annotated copy of Daldaban Figure 2, reproduced below, to illustrate those findings. Non-Final 14. Daldaban Figure 2 illustrates a disc type linear switched reluctance motor. Significantly, the Appellants do not direct our attention to any error in the Examiner's interpretation of claim 27 or the Examiner's factual findings. The Appellants also argue that the combination of Daldaban and Desai would not lead to the configuration of the Appellants' invention "since Desai limits the number of rotor poles to R = 2S-2." Br. 11. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 27 does not recite a specific number or numerical range of rotor poles and/or stator poles. Rather, claim 27 recites a numerical relationship between the number of rotor poles and the number of stator poles. Desai describes that same numerical relationship. Desai, col. 1, 11. 45-55. The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of claim 30 or claim 31. See Br. 12. Therefore, the Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 27, 30 and 31 is sustained. 8 Appeal2017-005545 Application 12/758,967 C. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 9