Ex Parte Post

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13150531 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/150,531 06/01/2011 Richard F. Post IL-10467 3213
86571 7590 12/02/2016
LLNL/John P. Wooldridge
Mark H. Lough, Deputy General Counsel
L-703, P.0 Box 808
Livermore, CA 94551
EXAMINER
ANDREWS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
llnl-docket@llnl.gov
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD F. POST
Appeal 2015-007027
Application 13/150,531
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and MICHEAL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6—14. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an apparatus comprising
an inner rotatable magnetic pole structure, a stationary outer ribbon support
structure, and a plurality of ribbons attached to the support structure.
According to Appellant, the apparatus can be employed as a magnetic
bearing with the ribbons providing for centering of the rotating bearing
element (Spec. 3, 13). Appellant acknowledges that magnetic bearing
systems are known (Spec. Tflf 5-11; Figs. 1-4). Appellant discloses that the
aim of the present invention is to provide for a novel combination of
Appeal 2015-007027
Application 13/150,531
elements that can satisfy stability requirements under static conditions and at
low rotational speeds (Spec. 12, 13, 23; Fig. 5).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an inner rotatable magnetic pole structure, wherein said
magnetic pole structure comprises permanent-magnet material and iron
poles, wherein said permanent-magnet material is located between said
iron poles:
a stationary outer ribbon support structure outside of and
concentric with said inner rotatable magnetic pole structure, wherein said
support structure is configured to remain stationary relative to said inner
rotatable magnetic pole structure; and
a plurality of metal ribbons attached to said support structure
such that each ribbon is tangent to or nearly tangent to said rotatable
magnetic pole structure, wherein upon rotation of said inner rotatable
magnetic pole structure, eddy currents produced in said ribbons will
provide a repelling force between said magnetic pole structure and said
metal ribbons.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Post US 5,495,211 Feb. 27, 1996
Lembke US 6,469,411 B2 Oct. 22, 2002
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lembke in view of Post.
After a review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the Examiner and
the countervailing Declaration evidence furnished by Appellant, we
2
Appeal 2015-007027
Application 13/150,531
determine that the Appellant’s arguments and evidence are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejection for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and in the Final Office Action. We offer the
following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly,
we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding
this appeal.
Appellant does not argue that Lembke fails to teach or suggest a
magnetic bearing including a stationary outer ribbon support structure that is
outside of and concentric with an inner rotor element and a plurality of metal
ribbons attached to the support structure that corresponds to Appellant’s
stationary outer ribbon support structure and plurality of metallic ribbons as
required by representative claim 1 (App Br. 3^4; Final Act. 4). Nor does
Appellant dispute the Examiner’s determination that Post teaches or suggests
a magnetic suspension bearing system that includes a rotatable central
magnetic pole structure having permanent magnet material located between
iron poles, which structure corresponds to Appellant’s inner magnetic pole
structure as required by representative claim 1 (App. Br. 3^4; see Final Act.
5).
Rather, Appellant argues that the Declaration of “Dr. Richard F. Post
shows that the combination of the two references will produce a structure
that has both an inner magnetic pole structure and an annular magnet on the
stator” which combination “will not increase the rotor’s axial and radial
3
Appeal 2015-007027
Application 13/150,531
stability but will produce an unbalanced system” according to an
approximation based on a specified computer program calculation conducted
by Dr. Post (App. Br. 3^4; Decl. 2—3; attached code lines). Appellant
contends that “[t]he examiner gives no weight to the Declaration by Dr.
Post” and for reasons supported by the Declaration the rejection should be
reversed (App. Br. 4).
However, the record reflects that the Examiner has considered and
weighed the Declaration evidence (Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3). Appellant
does not address the Examiner’s criticisms leveled at the persuasiveness and
weight to be attached to the Declaration evidence.
Consequently, Appellant’s argument fails to identify harmful error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
for substantially the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4