Ex Parte Stahlhut et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2013

11700677 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte RONNIE DEAN STAHLHUT and JIM MILTON SHOEMAKER _____________ Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an electric motor with liquid cooling capabilities. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. An electric motor comprising: a shaft, a rotor coupled to the shaft for rotation therewith, the rotor comprising a first annular member and magnets secured to the first annular member; and a stator spaced axially apart from the rotor, the stator comprising a plurality of generally planar windings secured to a first side of a magnetic core and a cover secured to a second side of the magnetic core; the second side opposite the first side, the magnetic core having at least one liquid cooling channel in the second side of the magnetic core. REFERENCES Forster US 3,709,835 Jan. 9, 1973 Skybyk US 5,334,898 Aug. 2, 1994 Smith US 5,982,074 Nov. 9, 1999 Ionel US 2005/0088052 A1 Apr. 28, 2005 Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-7, 10-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Skybyk. Ans. 3-8. Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Skybyk, and Ionel. Ans. 8-9. Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Skybyk, and Forster. Ans. 9- 10. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Smith and Skybyk teaches or suggests a magnetic core having at least one liquid cooling channel in the second side of the magnetic core? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Smith and Skybyk teaches or suggests inlets for receiving and discharging coolant fluid, as required by claim 12? ANALYSIS Claim 1-7, 10, 11, 13-21, and 24 Appellants select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-21, and 24, as Appellants do not separately address any of the other claims with particularity. App. Br. 15. Claim 1 requires a magnetic core having at least one liquid cooling channel in the second side of the magnetic core. The Examiner finds that Skybyk teaches or suggests, as shown by reference numerals 97 and 98, two separate magnetic cores. Ans. 10; see Figs. 13, 17. Additionally, the Examiner finds that located Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 4 between these two cores (97, 98) is copper tubing cooling element 101 that is used for liquid or air cooling. Ans. 10, see Figs. 14-17. Thus, the Examiner finds that this limitation is taught by Skybyk. Ans. 4, 8. Appellants argue that Skybyk’s teaching of liquid cooling is in the stator and not in the magnetic core, as required by the claim. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3-4. In support of this argument, Appellants contend that Skybyk’s reference numerals 97 and 98 are only described in Skybyk’s Brief Description Of The Drawings which indicates that they are part of the stator and not a part of the magnetic cores. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4. We disagree. First, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the elements designated by reference numerals 97 and 98 are magnetic cores. Ans. 10. Additional support for the Examiner’s finding can be found in column 10, lines 37-38 of Skybyk. Second, we agree with the Examiner that Skybyk’s single stator (60) includes these magnetic cores (97, 98). Ans. 12. Third, as correctly indicated by the Examiner, Appellants’ claim does not preclude the stator from including the magnetic cores. Ans. 12. Fourth, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the copper tubing cooling element is included between the two magnetic cores and is used for liquid cooling. Ans. 10. As a result, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that Skybyk teaches away from using liquid cooling in the core because it uses liquid cooling in the stator. App. Br. 14. For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-21, and 24. Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 5 Claim 12 Appellants argue that neither Smith nor Skybyk teaches or suggests a magnetic core with “inlets for receiving and discharging coolant fluid,” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 16-17. However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that reference numeral 102 in Skybyk’s Figure 14 shows an inlet and outlet for coolant fluid. Ans. 14. Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner’s finding does not indicate what is going into the copper tubing element and, therefore, there is no teaching of a coolant fluid. App. Br. 17. In response, the Examiner cites to column 5, lines 3-8, which teaches that a liquid is used in the cooling channel. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner since the reference specifically teaches a coolant liquid, i.e., fluid. For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. Claims 8, 9, 22, and 23 Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 8, 9, 22, and 23 as with claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 22, and 23 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Smith and Skybyk teaches or suggests a magnetic core having at least one liquid cooling channel in the second side of the magnetic core. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Smith and Skybyk teaches or suggests inlets for receiving and discharging coolant fluid, as required by claim 12. Appeal 2010-010537 Application 11/700,677 6 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc