Ex Parte Wagner et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2014

10585905 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUNTER WAGNER
and JUERGEN ZOELL
____________________

Appeal 2012-006418
Application 10/585,905
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gunter Wagner and Juergen Zoell (“Appellants”) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–11. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-006418
Application 10/585,905

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to a fuel feed unit having an electric
motor. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below.
1. A fuel feed unit for delivering fuel,
comprising:
an electric motor;
an electric motor stator ring;
magnet shells arranged inside the stator ring;
and
a motor casing to accommodate the stator
ring;
wherein the electric motor stator ring and
the magnet shells comprise a single-piece body
formed as a single piece of a single material.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tuckey (US 5,106,277, issued Apr. 21, 1992), in view of
Ward (US 5,121,021, issued June 9, 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–11 as unpatentable over Tuckey in view of Ward
The Examiner finds that Tuckey discloses a fuel pump including all
limitations of claim 1 with the exception of a one-piece body comprising the
stator ring and the magnet shells. Answer 5. The Examiner relies on Ward
as disclosing a one-piece, combined frame-and-stator assembly 12, and that
it is known to combine two different motor components into a single piece
of a single material in order to simplify a motor-driven device. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner concludes that, to one of ordinary skill in the art desiring a
simpler fuel pump assembly having less parts, it would have been obvious to
App
App

utiliz
pum
Tuck
magn
singl
the p
and d
assem

eal 2012-0
lication 10
e the com
p disclosed
Appellan
ey fail to
et shells c
e material
ermanent
istinct fro
Figure 1
Figure 1
bly of W
06418
/585,905
ponent-co
in Tucke
ts challen
teach or su
omprise a
. Br. 3–5.
magnets 1
m the com
of Ward i
depicts th
ard.
mbining te
y in order
ge the Exa
ggest that
single-pie
Appellan
4, i.e., the
posite ma
s reproduc
e cross-sec

3
chniques d
to obtain s
miner’s p
the electri
ce body fo
ts further c
claimed “m
terial for t
ed below:
tional vie
isclosed i
uch a resu
osition, arg
c motor st
rmed as a
ontend th
agnet sh
he frame 1

w of the fr
n Ward w
lt. Id. at 7
uing that
ator ring a
single pie
at Ward sh
ells,” are s
2. Id.

ame and m
ith the fue
–8.
Ward and
nd the
ce of a
ows that
eparate

agnet
l
App
App

in Fi
and m
Fina
15, 2
posit
and a
‘mag
Answ
to th
shell
reaso
langu
inter
eal 2012-0
lication 10
Figure 2
Figure 2
gure 1.
During p
agnets 14
l Act. (dat
008) at 3.
ion that “t
casing of
net shell’
er 6. The
e Appellan
s” 12 are d
During e
nable inte
age shoul
preted by
06418
/585,905
of Ward i
depicts a
rosecution
of Ward
ed March
In the Ex
he magnet
any electr
(i.e., a she
Examine
ts’ claime
esigned to
xaminatio
rpretation
d be read
one of ord
s reproduc
cross-secti
, the Exam
correspon
10, 2011) a
aminer’s A
shells are
ic motor c
ll that surr
r now con
d “magnet
engage m
n, “claims
consistent
in light of
inary skill
4
ed below:
onal view
iner foun
ded to the
t 3–5 and
nswer, ho
not functi
an be inte
ounds a se
strues War
shells” an
agnets 14
… are to
with the s
the specifi
in the art.”

of the Wa
d that mag
claimed “m
Non-Fina
wever, the
onally or s
rpreted as
ries of ma
d’s frame
d contend
. Id. at 7.
be given th
pecificatio
cation as i
In re Bo

rd assemb
nets 32 of
agnet she
l Act. (dat
Examine
tructurally
Appellant
gnets ther
12 as corr
s that “ma

eir broade
n, [ ] and
t would be
nd, 910 F.
ly shown
Tuckey
lls.” See
ed April
r took the
claimed,
s’ claimed
ein[)].”
esponding
gnet
st
… claim

2d 831,

Appeal 2012-006418
Application 10/585,905

5
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); accord In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(“[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
language, taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.”); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation,
this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art
would reach. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
For the following reasons, the Examiner’s most recent interpretation
of the term “magnet shells” is unreasonable, as it is inconsistent with the one
that those skilled in the art would reach.
First, Appellants’ Specification defines “magnet shells” as
components that induce a magnetic flux in the rotor. Spec. 1 (Background
of the Invention) and 3 (Detailed Description of the Invention). One of
ordinary skill in the art would not construe a magnet shell that induces a
magnetic flux as corresponding to a simple motor casing. For this reason, it
is unreasonable to construe the term “magnet shells” as merely a casing or
shell that surrounds a series of magnets, as the Examiner has done. Answer
6.
Second, the claimed term “magnet shells” is plural, thus requiring at
least two magnet shells. The Examiner’s rejection fails to account for the
plural nature of this term and the Examiner has not shown how the
combination of the teachings of the references would result in more than one
“magnet shell.” We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
construe the term “magnet shells” in light of the Specification as a plurality
of magnets for an electric motor, as opposed to a plurality of casings or
Appeal 2012-006418
Application 10/585,905

6
shells that each surrounds a series of magnets. See Spec. 3–4 (Detailed
Description of the Invention).
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. Claims 2–
11 depend from claim 1 and the rejection is also not sustained as to these
claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11.

REVERSED

mls