Ex Parte Watanabe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2016

13499269 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 13/499,269 03/29/2012 Atsushi Watanabe 13596-81 7828 23838 7590 12/21/2016 ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP 13501 STREET, N.W. SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER KENERLY, TERRANCE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): u spto @ keny on .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ATSUSHI WATANABE, MASAYOSHI HAGA, and SHINGO HASHIMOTO Appeal 2015-003425 Application 13/499,269 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, MARK NAGUMO, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, 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—3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §6. Appellants’1 claimed invention is directed to a motor comprising a stator having slots2 and provided with a specified wave winding coil formed as a cage coil3 made with plural flat conductor wires arranged in a 1 Appellants identify Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 See stator G (Spec. 121; Fig. 1) and slots HI (Spec 123; Fig. 3). 3 See cage coil 14 (Spec. 121; Figs. 1, 2) Appeal 2015-003425 Application 13/499,269 continuous meandering pattern, and a rotor having a central shaft4. The wave winding conductor wires have step portions formed at a coil end part at an end of the winding coil that is bent toward the rotor.5 Each wave winding conductor wire step portion corresponds to a thickness of the flat conductor wire and the in-slot portions of each flat conductor wire are displaced in sequence in a radial direction in different slots of the stator core (Spec. H 35, 39, 46; Figs. 6B, 7C, 8A, 8C, 8D; note the progressive radial displacement of the vertical segments shown in Figs. 8C, 8D). Claim 1, which is the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix, below (emphasis added): 1. A motor including a stator provided with a wave winding coil using a flat conductor wire and a rotor provided with a center shaft, wherein the wave winding coil includes a cage coil formed of a wave winding wire assembly wound in plural turns, the assembly consisting of a plurality of wave winding conductor wires each being formed in a continuous meandering pattern so that straight portions are longer in sequence and a coil end part at one end is bent toward the rotor with respect to in slot portions of a stator core, and the wave winding conductor wires being overlapped in sequence with displacements, the wave winding conductor wires are formed with bending radii that increases sequentially, step portions are formed at the coil end part of the wave winding conductor wires in the wave winding coil so that each step portion corresponds to a thickness of the flat conductor wire and the in-slot portions are displaced in sequence in a radial direction in different slots, and the coil end part at the one end is located closer to an axis of the rotor than an inner peripheral surface of the stator core is. 4 See rotor shaft 41 (Spec. 121; Fig. 2). 5 See stepped wave winding conductor wire B (Spec. 134; Figs. 6A-6C) with a bent end as shown in wave winding conductor wire C (Spec. H 37- 44; Figs. 7A-C). 2 Appeal 2015-003425 Application 13/499,269 The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims: Koga US 2010/0102681 A1 Apr. 29,2010 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Koga. We reverse the stated rejection. Our reasoning follows. The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case establishing the non-patentability of the rejected claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In order for the Examiner to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation, the Examiner must establish where each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim, is found in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner has not established that Koga describes an apparatus that satisfies all of the required limitations corresponding to the claimed apparatus, by specifying how the cited portions of Koga describe a motor that includes elements/features corresponding to all of the recited elements/features of independent claim 1 and arranged as required by claim 1, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 5—12; Reply Br. 1^4). In particular, the Examiner has not established how any of Koga’s conductors 4 (4A, 4B; Fig. 5) satisfy the argued claim 1 limitation specifying that “each step portion corresponds to a thickness of the flat 3 Appeal 2015-003425 Application 13/499,269 conductor wire and the in-slot portions are displaced in sequence in a radial direction in different slots” (emphasis added) (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3—6; Koga Fig. 5; see Koga 37—39, Fig. 4). In this regard, the sequential displacement of the “in-slot portions” of Appellants’ claim 1 in a radial direction in different slots is directed to the sequential and radial displacement of a conductor wire’s in-slot (straight) portions (see Spec. 135; PS1- PS10, Fig. 6A—6C; C1SX, Figs. 8A— 8D) in different slots (HI, Fig. 3). As argued by Appellants, Koga discloses sets of two conductor coil wires that are arranged to be adjacent to each other in the same slot (App. Br. 9-12; Koga, 137; Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner’s rebuttal position that claim 1 fails to require particulars concerning the sequence of in-slot portions other than that they be displaced radially (Ans. 4) does not establish that Koga describes a motor having a radially directed displacement of in-slot (straight) portions of a wave winding wire 4 in sequence in different slots, as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 5—12; Reply Br. 3^4; Koga Spec. Tflf 50-52; Figs. 8A—8D; see Fig. 6B, 7A). It follows that we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed. REVERSED 4