Ex Parte Maier et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 2019

13503414 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/503,414 65363 7590 Todd A. VAUGHN Jordan IP Law, LLC FILING DATE 05/15/2012 05/02/2019 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401 Silver Spring, MD 20904 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erich Maier 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. 0537-454 8403 EXAMINER PEKARSKA YA, LILY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2019 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): tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com admin2@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERICH MAIER, PAUL MCLENNAN, and ROBERT JONES Appeal 2018-008626 1 Application 13/503,4142 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 8, 11-22, and 24-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Jan. 21, 2016) and Reply Br. ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 12, 2018), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 6, 2015) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 29, 2016). 2 Appellants identify "MAGNA ELECTRONICS EUROPE GMBH & CO. KG" as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008626 Application 13/503,414 We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention generally relates to an axial fan and, more particularly, to "an axial fan for a radiator module of a motor vehicle." Spec. ,-i 2. Claims 8, 16, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. An axial fan comprising: an electric motor having a rotor with a plurality of holding tongues which project outwardly from an outer circumference of the rotor in a plane extending perpendicularly to the axis of the electric motor; and a fan wheel having an inner peripheral region to be engaged by the holding tongues and mount the fan wheel to the electric motor in a manner such that the fan wheel lies completely behind a plan predetermined by a bottom surface of the rotor. REJECTION Claims 8, 11-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kershaw (US 5,944,497, iss. Aug. 31, 1999) and Simofi- Ilyes (US 2007/0024135 Al, pub. Feb. 1, 2007). ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 8, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because the combination of Kershaw and Simofi-Ilyes does not teach "a rotor with a plurality of holding tongues which project outwardly from an outer circumference of the rotor in a plane extended perpendicularly to the axis of the electric motor," as recited by claim 8, and similarly recited by claims 16 2 Appeal 2018-008626 Application 13/503,414 and 25. See App. Br. 6-9; see also Reply Br. 5-7. The Examiner acknowledges that Kershaw does not teach the argued limitation. Ans. 22. However, the Examiner finds that Simofi-Ilyes folded out tabs or brackets 30 teaches the claimed plurality of holding tongues. Id. at 22-23. The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis, as pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 5-6), is that Simofi-Ilyes' brackets 30 are made integral with the outer circumference of an open end of motor case 24, not a rotor. See Simofi-Ilyes Abstract, ,i 25, Fig. 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claims 8, 16, and 25, and their dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 11-22, and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is reversed. REVERSED 3