Ex Parte Noble

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

14324591 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/324,591 07/07/2014
1009 7590 05/01/2019
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ernest John Noble
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.
1527-524 Cont. 5693
EXAMINER
PEKARSKA YA, LILY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERNEST JOHN NOBLE
Appeal2017-009172 1
Application 14/324,591 2
Technology Center 3700
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, 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
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Nov. 14,
2016), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 9, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 15, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed June 14, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Delta T Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to ceiling
fans, particularly though not solely to a modular Totally Enclosed Non-
Ventilated (TENV) ceiling fan driven by an Electronically Commutated
(EC) motor with a separated Safety Extra Low Voltage (SELV) Switched
Mode Power Supply (SMPS)." Spec. 1, 11. 3---6.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 1 7, and 18 are the independent claims recite:
1. A ceiling fan comprising:
a fan motor and blade assembly,
a mounting tube for suspending the fan motor and blade
assembly from a ceiling, and
a power supply mounted within the mounting tube
configured to power the fan motor.
17. A ceiling fan comprising:
a moulded stator frame,
a raised turret integrally moulded within the moulded
stator frame configured to enclose and mount a motor controller,
and
an external user changeable auxiliary module.
18. A ceiling fan comprising:
a moulded stator frame,
a raised turret integrally moulded within the moulded
stator frame configured to enclose and mount a motor controller,
said raised turret having a plurality of cutouts, and
an external user changeable auxiliary module configured
to mount within the plurality of cutouts of the raised turret,
2
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
wherein the external user changeable auxiliary module is
a lighting module, and wherein the lighting module comprises a
plurality of light emitting diodes (LED).
Appeal Br. 16, 18-19
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 11-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lee3 in view ofLiu. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and Zhang. 5
3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Liu and Pozzuoli. 6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Liu and Yoshikawa. 7
5. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Liu and Bitting. 8
6. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu and Bo gage. 9
7. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lui in view of Diehl. 10
3 Lee et al., US 7,196,485 Bl, iss. Mar. 27, 2007.
4 Liu, US 2004/0191087 Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2004.
5 Zhang, CN 2879529 Y, Mar. 14, 2007.
6 Pozzuoli et al., US 7,276,814 B2, iss. Oct. 2, 2007.
7 Yoshikawa et al., US 7,626,299 B2, iss. Dec. 1, 2009.
8 Bitting et al., US 4,500,821, iss. Feb. 19, 1985.
9 Bogage, US 5,135,365, iss. Aug. 4, 1992.
10 Diehl et al., US 2003/0146671 Al, pub. Aug. 7, 2003.
3
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
8. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lui in view of Diehl and Okimura. 11
9. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lui in view of Diehl, Okimura, and Trott. 12
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that
the Examiner erred in finding that the art of record teaches a power supply
mounted within a mounting tube as required by claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lee teaches a ceiling
fan as claimed except that Lee "does not expressly state that the power
supply is mounted within the mounting tube." Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds that "ceiling fans having the claimed power supply
arrangement are well known in the art, as taught by Lui." Id. at 4. With
respect to Lui, the Examiner finds that "Lui discloses that the support
assembly or mounting assembly or mounting tube assembly 23 is
conventional in construction, and includes a canopy 232, and a hanger rod
231 suspended from the canopy 232 and extending to the motor." Id.
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Lui teaches that a power
supply, remote fan controller 24, "is definitely arranged inside the canopy
232, includes a power circuit 241 and a SYNC signal generator 242
connected to the power circuit 241," and thus, "the power circuit 241 is
surely arranged inside the mounting tube assembly 23." Id.
11 Okimura, US 8,100,649 B2, iss. Jan 24, 2012.
12 Trott et al., US 8,096,670 B2, iss. Jan 17, 2012.
4
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
The claim unequivocally requires that the power supply is mounted
within a mounting tube. The Examiner's findings do not establish that Liu
teaches mounting a power supply within a mounting tube or that such a
configuration would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. The Examiner interprets the claim broadly to require only that the
power supply is mounted within a "mounting tube assembly," which the
Examiner finds is the combination of the canopy and hanger rod in Liu. But
the plain words of the claim require that the power supply is within a
mounting tube, and not a "mounting tube assembly," i.e., the plain meaning
of the claim requires a power supply located within a tube. We determine
that this plain meaning is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
here, which is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification. The
Specification only describes the use of a power supply 13 6 mounted within a
tube 13 and provides that the tube suspends the fan from the ceiling,
provides an enclosure for the power supply, and acts "to dissipate the [power
supply] power loss component and remove this heat source from the motor
housing." Spec. 8, 11. 6-9; Fig. 2. Thus, we determine that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the power supply is
mounted within a tube, and not simply within an assembly that also includes
a tube.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the art of record teaches the configuration of a mounting tube
and a power supply mounted therein, as required by claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6, 11-13, 15, and 16.
5
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
Rejections 2-6
The Examiner does not rely on Zhang, Pozzuoli, Yoshikawa, Bitting,
or Bogage to remedy the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we
also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-10, and 14.
Rejection 7
With respect to claim 17, the Examiner finds that Lui teaches a ceiling
fan as claimed, except that "Lui does not explicitly disclose motor details."
Final Act. 14. More particularly, in relevant part, the Examiner finds that
Lui teaches a fan with a motor 21 and an external user changeable auxiliary
module, lamp unit 32. Id. With respect to the motor details, the Examiner
finds that Diehl teaches a molded stator frame and at least one raised turret
as required by claim 17. Id. at 14--15 (citing Diehl Figs. 1, 7; ,r,r 9, 28). The
Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art ... to have utilized the motor as taught by Diehl, in
the Liu ceiling fan, in order to provide an insulated stator assembly which
has improved electrical performance properties and reliability." Id. at 15
( citing Diehl ,r 6).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 17.
Appellant first argues that "Lui is completely silent about the lamp
being user changeable," and thus, "the cited references fail to disclose all the
recited elements of claim 17." Appeal Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by
this argument. We agree with the Examiner's statement that Lui at least
suggests that the lamp unit is a lighting module that may be considered an
external user changeable auxiliary module. See Final Act. 14 ( citing Lui
,r 27). Lui describes element 32 as "a lamp unit" mounted on a switch box.
6
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
Lui ,r 27. Lui discloses two embodiments in Figures 6 and 7 including a
switch box and without or with lamp units, respectively. Lui discloses that
these embodiments are essentially the same in overall structure, the only
difference being the addition of the lamp unit. See Lui ,r,r 24--27. Based on
these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner to the extent the Examiner has
indicated that Lui at least suggests the lamp unit is user changeable and may
be considered an external user changeable auxiliary module as required by
the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the use of a
lamp unit is optional and may be used or removed as a user sees fit based on
Lui' s disclosure.
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately support
the conclusion of obviousness with a sufficient articulated reason for
combining the references. Appeal Br. 13. We disagree. The rejection relies
on a specific teaching from Diehl indicating that Diehl' s stator assembly
provides "improved electrical performance properties and reliability." See
Diehl ,r 6. Based on this teaching, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to utilize a motor assembly as taught by Diehl in Liu's
ceiling fan to provide for the advantages specifically described in Diehl.
Without further explanation from Appellant, we find that the Examiner's
reasoning is adequately supported and does in fact qualify as an articulated
reason with the requisite rational underpinnings to support the Examiner's
conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
7
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
Rejection 8
We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 18 by Appellant's
argument that the combination of art does not teach a raised turret with a
plurality of cutouts and a changeable auxiliary module configured to mount
within the plurality of cutouts. Appeal Br. 14.
In relevant part, the Examiner finds that Diehl "discloses a raised
turret RT92 that certainly [is] integrally moulded within the molded stator
frame" and "that the raised turret surely [has] a plurality of cut-outs or slots
98." Final Act. 18-19 ( emphasis omitted). Based on the modification of
Lui to include Diehl's motor, the Examiner finds that "one skilled in the art
would have been reasonably appraised to mount the external user
changeable auxiliary module within the plurality of cutouts of the raised
turret." Id. at 20.
However, it is not clear to us how the identified raised turret 92
includes a plurality of cutouts. Rather than a turret with multiple cutouts,
Diehl appears to teach a plurality of posts 92, each with a single slot 98. See
Diehl ,r 27. Further, these slots create shoulders that may be compressed in
order to allow deflection of the post head 96 for mounting a circuit board
with a hole therethrough. Id. Thus, the cited portions of Diehl do not appear
to disclose anything mounted within the alleged cutout of the posts. And,
the Examiner does not otherwise explain how these posts 92 or Lui' s lamp
unit 32 are configured to support the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would be appraised to mount anything within the slot of
Diehl's posts.
8
Appeal2017-009172
Application 14/324,591
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established that the art of record teaches each element of the claim, and thus,
we do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection 9
The Examiner does not rely on Okimura or Trott in a manner that
remedies the deficiency in the rejection of claim 18. Thus, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claim 19 and 20.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-20. We
AFFIRM the rejection of claim 17.
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-IN-PART
9