Ex Parte Knapp

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

12907519 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/907,519 10/19/2010 90082 7590 04/25/2016 Law Offices of Mark L. Berrier 1715 S.Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 200-E Austin, TX 78746 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John M. Knapp 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. BAKR01500 2145 EXAMINER LEE, PETET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2848 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2016 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 JOHN M. KNAPP Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907 ,519 Technology Center 2800 Before JESSICA C. KAISER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-22, all of the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Baker Hughes Incorporated. (App. Br. 4.) 2 Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. (App. Br. 31.) Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 EXEMPLARY CLAIMS Claims 1, 12, and 15, the pending independent claims, are illustrative of the invention, and are reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for insulating a Y-point in a three-phase electric motor, the apparatus comprising: an electrically insulating enclosure, wherein the enclosure forms a cavity configured to accommodate a Y-point junction of a three-phase motor; one or more apertures through the enclosure, wherein the apertures are configured to enable three conductors which are connected at the Y-point junction to extend from the cavity to an exterior of the enclosure; and one or more insulating seals, wherein each of the seals is formed at a corresponding one of the apertures, and wherein each of the seals provides an electrically insulating barrier between the Y-point junction and the exterior of the enclosure. 12. An electric submersible pump system for downhole applications; the system comprising: a pump; and a motor coupled to the pump and configured to drive the pump, wherein the motor is Y-wound and utilizes three-phase power, wherein the motor includes an electrically insulating enclosure which forms a cavity that accommodates a Y-point junction of the motor, wherein the enclosure has one or more apertures therethrough which enable three conductors which are connected at the Y-point junction to extend from the cavity to an exterior of the enclosure, and 2 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 wherein the enclosure has one or more insulating seals at the apertures which provide an electrically insulating barrier between the Y-point junction and the exterior of the enclosure. 15. A method for insulating a Y-point within a three-phase induction motor, the method comprising: providing an electrically insulating enclosure, wherein the enclosure forms a cavity configured to accommodate a Y-point junction of a three-phase motor and has one or more apertures that extend from a cavity within the enclosure to an exterior of the enclosure; positioning three conductors through the apertures, wherein the three conductors extend from coils of the motor to a Y-point junction; and enclosing the Y-point junction within the enclosure, wherein the apertures of the enclosure are sealed and the enclosure forms an electrically insulating barrier between the cavity within the enclosure and the exterior of the enclosure. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 8-11, 15-18, and 21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff (US 2,662,735; issued Dec. 15, 1953), Bunch (US 6,273,754 Bl; issued Aug. 14, 2001), and Hunter (US 3,825,148; issued July 23, 1974). (Final Act. 4---6, 11-13.) The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and Link (US 4,196,408; issued Apr. 1, 1980). (Final Act. 6-9.) The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, Link, and Herrmann, Jr. (US 3,852,512; issued Dec. 3, 1974). (Final Act. 7-8.) 3 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 The Examiner has rejected claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and Pearson (US 6,176,308 Bl; issued Jan. 23, 2001). (Final Act. 9-11.) The Examiner has rejected claims 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arutunoff, Bunch, Hunter, and Vandevier (US 4,211,625; issued July 8, 1980). (Final Act. 14--15.) ISSUE The dispositive issue presented by Appellant's arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding Arutunoff teaches or suggests a "Y- point junction," as recited in claims 1, 12, and 15? ANALYSIS Appellant argues Arutunoff does not teach "a Y-point junction of a three-phase motor within [an] enclosure." (App. Br. 13.) We agree with Appellant. As Appellant argues (id.), the Specification describes that three-phase electric motors can use a "Y" configuration; in such a configuration, "power is applied to one end of each coil (each coil receiving a different phase of the three-phase power), and the second end of each coil is tied to the others at a junction that is referred to as the Y-point." (Spec. i-f 5.) Figure 4 of Appellant's Specification is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 400 Fig. 4 Figure 4 depicts a Y-point junction within an enclosure. According to the Specification, "[ c ]onductors 430-432 are connected to the three coils of a three-phase induction motor," and "[t]he end portions of each of conductors 430-432 are joined and secured to each other by a metal band [ 415] that is crimped over the end portions of the conductors. This junction of conductors 430-432 forms the Y-point of the motor." (Spec. i-f 38.) Consistent with the Specification, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a "Y- point junction" in the context of the claims is a point where the conductors 5 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 are electrically connected. We further agree that this understanding is supported by the references cited in Appellant's Evidence Appendix (see App. Br. 13). Under that construction, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Arutunoffteaches a Y-pointjunction. A portion of Figure 2A of Arutunoff with annotations by the Examiner is reproduced below. Annotated Figure 2A shows the Examiner finds the Y-point junction of Arutunoff is the point where conductors 120, 121, and 122 come together. (Ans. 2.) The Examiner finds that this structure is the same as Appellant's Figure 4 with conductors 430, 431, and 432 joined at connection point 415. (Id.) We disagree. As discussed above, Appellant's Specification describes that the three conductors 430-432 are connected to the three coils of a three- phase induction motor and the ends of those conductors terminate in the Y- point connected by a metal band. (Spec. i-f 38.) That structure is not the same as Figure 2A of Arutunoff. As Appellant points out, the components 6 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 of Figure 2A of Arutunoff sit above the motor 15 in Figure 1. (Reply Br. 5.) Arutunoff teaches: [C]onductors 120, 121 and 122 extend from the cable 125, which extends through the passage in the tubular member 104 and leads to the motor 15. The motor 15 is a three phase motor and the electrical energy is thus supplied to said motor from the cable 36 in the supporting cable 1 7 through the cable 3 7 and the cooperating contacts to the cable 125 having the conductors that are connected with said motor. (Arutunoff 8:35--44.) In other words, we agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill would understand that conductors 120, 121, and 122 are not electrically connected to each other at the point the Examiner indicates because if they were, the conductors could not carry three-phase power to motor 15. (See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7.) We determine the Examiner erred in finding Arutunoff teaches the Y- point junction recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 15. Regarding claim 12, we observe the Examiner found that Pearson teaches a motor that is Y- wound, but the Examiner continued to rely on the finding that Arutunoff teaches a Y-point junction in reaching an obviousness conclusion. (See Final Act. 9--10.) We determine the Examiner's citation of Pearson in the rejection of independent claim 12 as well as the additional references cited in the rejections of certain dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's findings discussed supra. For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-22. 7 Appeal2015-000026 Application 12/907,519 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5-22 is reversed. REVERSED 8