Ex Parte HUNG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2019

14085025 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/085,025 11/20/2013
60601 7590 02/19/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ming-Yuan HUNG
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.
094 l/2979PUS 1 9965
EXAMINER
HERRMANN, JOSEPH S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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 MING-YUAN HUNG, CHIN-WEI LIN, and CHIN-SHENG LIU
Appeal2018-006647 1
Application 14/085,025 2
Technology Center 3700
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July 7, 2017), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 17, 2018), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 3, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Delta Electronics, Inc.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-00664 7
Application 14/085,025
BACKGROUND
"The present disclosure relates to a fan, and in particular, to an inner-
rotor fan." Spec. ,r 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. An inner-rotor fan, comprising:
a fan frame;
a bearing disposed on the fan frame; and
a rotor comprising:
a hub;
a retaining tube disposed in the hub;
a magnetic ring, having an inner hole, wherein the
retaining tube is disposed in the inner hole;
a shaft, disposed on the hub, located within the retaining
tube, and passing through the bearing; and
a plurality of blades disposed around the hub,
wherein the magnetic ring is formed as a single piece and
in direct contact with the retaining tube, the retaining tube and
the hub are formed as a single piece, and the retaining tube and
the hub have the same material and are made of plastic,
wherein the inner-rotor fan excludes a magnetic field
shielding element disposed on an inner wall of the magnetic
ring or between the magnetic ring and the shaft.
Br. 14 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal 2018-00664 7
Application 14/085,025
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Homg3 in view of Yamashita. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Homg in view of Yamashita and Matt. 5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Homg in view of Yamashita and Takeshita. 6
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Homg discloses an
inner-rotor fan as claimed, except that Homg does not disclose a rotor with a
magnetic ring that is a single piece. Final Act. 3-5. Rather, the Examiner
relies on the embodiment shown in Homg' s Figure 9 and finds that the
magnetic ring in this embodiment is composed of elements 133 and 134. Id.
at 4. However, the Examiner finds that Yamashita teaches a rotor with a
magnetic ring 27 that is formed of a single piece. Id. at 5 ( citing Yamashita,
Fig. 1 ). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Homg to include a magnetic ring that is a single piece as in Yamashita "in
order to increase the output of the motor and decrease the amount of current
required to operate the motor" or because "it has been held that forming in
one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put
together involves only routine skill in the art." Id. at 5---6 (citing Yamashita,
col. 4, 11. 42---61; Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).
3 Homg, US 8,366,419 B2, iss. Feb. 5, 2013.
4 Yamashita et al., US 6,387,294 Bl, iss. May 14, 2002.
5 Matt et al., US 3,084,003, iss. Apr. 2, 1963 ("Matt").
6 Takeshita et al., US 9,109,607 B2, iss. Aug. 18, 2015.
3
Appeal 2018-00664 7
Application 14/085,025
Finally, we note that in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
finds that Homg discloses another embodiment in which element 134 is not
used, "in order to save cost and reduce structural complexity." Ans. 15
( citing Homg, col. 5, 11. 47--49).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error by
Appellants' arguments.
Appellants argue that Homg does not disclose the claimed magnetic
ring and magnetic field shielding element of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-10. In
particular, Appellants argue that the alleged magnetic ring is formed of two
pieces and that the magnetically conducting ring 134 is a magnetic field
shielding element, which is expressly precluded by the claim. Id. at 10. We
are not persuaded by these arguments against Homg individually. The
Examiner acknowledges that the alleged magnetic ring in Homg is not made
from a single piece and relies on Yamashita as disclosing a magnetic ring
formed from a single piece. See Final Act. 4--5. Further, although the claim
expressly precludes the inclusion of a magnet field shielding element,
without further explanation from Appellants, we agree with the Examiner
that it is not clear why the magnetically conducting ring would be a magnet
field shielding element as precluded by the claim. See Ans. 15-16.
Appellants also argue that Yamashita fails to remedy the deficiencies
in Homg. Appeal Br. 10. First, Appellants argue that Yamashita fails to
teach a magnetic ring as required by claim 1 because Yamashita discloses a
ring that is disposed on the inner wall of the tube, rather than the opposite
configuration required by the claim. Id. at 11. However, the location of the
magnet in Yamashita does not persuade us of error because the rejection
relies on the combination of Homg and Yamashita. This argument does not
4
Appeal 2018-00664 7
Application 14/085,025
explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
found it obvious to replace Homg's elements 133 and 134 with a single
piece magnet, as in Yamashita.
Second, Appellants argue that Yamashita's magnet should not be
equated to the combination of elements 133 and 134 in Homg because
"Yamashita does not teach that the alleged magnetic ring (27) can provide a
magnetically conducting effect," i.e., Yamashita's magnetic ring "does not
correspond to two elements of Homg with different functions and purposes."
Id. at 11. Finally, Appellants argue that Yamashita's structure is such that
no magnetic field shielding element is needed and that replacing Homg's
elements 133 and 134 with Yamashita's magnet ring 27 would reduce "the
rotational stability of the rotor of Homg" because "the alleged magnetic ring
(2 7) of Yamashita will provide magnetic force to the bearing 114 of Homg."
Id. at 12.
These arguments also do not persuade us of error. First, to the extent
Appellants are asserting that element 134 is a magnetic field shielding
element, we disagree for the reasons discussed above. Second, because
Appellants do not persuade us that Homg element 134 is a magnetic field
shielding element, we are not persuaded that substituting a one piece
magnetic ring, as taught by Yamashita, for elements 133 and 134 in Homg
would cause any issue in the "rotational stability" of Homg's rotor, as
Appellants do not otherwise provide any evidence of such result. Finally, as
noted above, the Examiner has identified an embodiment in Homg in which
the magnetic conducting element is not present. See Homg, Fig. 6. We also
note Homg suggests that it is not necessary to include the magnetic
conducting element 134 in the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner, i.e.
5
Appeal 2018-00664 7
Application 14/085,025
the embodiment of Figure 5. Specifically, Homg discloses that the
permanent magnet is coupled to the outer periphery of the side wall 131 b by
"tight fitting, snapping, bonding, or other suitable provisions" and that the
inclusion of the magnetically conducting ring is preferred, but not
necessarily required. Homg, col. 4, 11. 46-53.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6-12, for which Appellants do not
provide separate arguments. See Appeal Br. 12.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6