Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 2021

2020004632 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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. 15/435,777 02/17/2017 Chun Tang 83744396 6661 28395 7590 06/28/2021 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER KIM, JOHN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUN TANG, FENG LIANG, WEI WU, and MICHAEL W. DEGNER Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 Technology Center 2800 BeforeKAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY. WILSON, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–10 and 13–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed February 17, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated May 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed November 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated February 6, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 1, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an electric machine with stator windings for reduced torque ripple. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight key disputed limitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electric machine comprising: a stator carrying two sets of multiphase windings electrically isolated from each other and having an angular space displacement of A° electric corresponding to a torque ripple of harmonic order N such that, responsive to current flowing through the sets with a phase shift of A° electric, N±1 harmonic orders of resulting stator magnetic fields cancel to preclude formation of the torque ripple of harmonic order N, wherein N is a multiple of 6 other than 6. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App. 1) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:3 I. Claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. III. Claims 1–3, 5, 14–16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang.4 IV. Claims 7, 8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang in view of Hao.5 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 13, 14, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3. 4 Wang, US 2015/0311758 A1, published Oct. 29, 2015. 5 Hao et al., US 2012/0306422 A1, published Dec. 6, 2012. Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 3 V. Claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang in view of Tanaka.6 VI. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang in view of Hao and Tanaka. DISCUSSION Rejection I – Written Description Claims 2 and 15 require “fundamental orders of the stator magnetic fields are in phase.” Appeal Br. 6–7 (Claims App. 1–2). The Examiner rejects both claims 2 and 15 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5–6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that there is no support in the disclosure for these orders being “in phase” as claimed while also complying with the angular space displacement of A° electric limitation required by independent claims 1 and 14, respectively, from which claims 2 and 15 depend.7 Id. “[T]he test for [compliance with the written description requirement] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 6 Tanaka et al., US 2012/0248924 A1, published Oct. 4, 2012. 7 In response to the Appeal Brief, the Examiner presents counter-arguments maintaining the rejections of claims 2 and 15 under “35 USC 112.” Ans. 6. However, the arguments presented in the Examiner’s Answer are directed towards the definiteness of the claims, and do not specifically address the 112(a) rejections. Ans. 7–8. Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 4 Appellant argues that Figure 4 of its application shows “fundamental orders of the stator magnetic fields are in phase.” Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues that the limitation is demonstrated by the two vertical lines depicted in the figure and the accompanying caption. Id. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. We first note that claims 2 and 15 are original claims and the Examiner does not find that the lack of written description arises as a result of any amendments to the independent claims. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). Furthermore, as Appellant persuasively argues, the subject matter of claims 2 and 15 is explicitly supported in the originally filed disclosure. Appeal Br. 4. Figure 4 of Appellant’s application shows the fundamental orders of the stator magnetic field as being in phase. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification sets forth “[a]lthough the space displacement between the windings acts to shift the angle between one of the fundamental components relative to the other, the phase shift between the respective currents counteracts the shift so that the fundamental components remain in phase.” Spec. ¶ 17 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this figure and the accompanying disclosure that Appellant had possession of the subject matter of claims 2 and 15. Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 5 Because Appellant has identified a reversible error, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Rejection II – Indefiniteness As discussed above, claims 2 and 15 require “fundamental orders of the stator magnetic fields are in phase.” Appeal Br. 6–7 (Claims App. 1–2). The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 15 as indefinite. Final Act. 6. Similar to Rejection I, discussed above, the Examiner finds that this limitation is inconsistent with limitations of the independent claims from which claims 2 and 15 depend and argues that this renders the claims indefinite. Id.; Ans. 6–8. The statute requires that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). During prosecution, “‘[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”’ Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curium)). Appellant argues that Figure 4 of its application depicts the “fundamental orders of the stator magnetic fields are in phase” and shows that the inconsistency that the Examiner determines renders the claims indefinite is not actually present. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Figure 4 and paragraph 17 of Appellant’s Specification Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 6 demonstrate that the angular space displacement and the fundamental orders being in phase are not inconsistent with one another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand claims 2 and 15 when reading the claims in light of this disclosure. As such, the claims are not indefinite. Because Appellant has identified a reversible error, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. Rejections III – Obviousness over Wang The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 14–16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Wang. Final Act. 7–10. Appellant presents arguments directed to the subject matter of independent claim 1 only, to which we accordingly limit our discussion. Appeal Br. 3–4; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Wang teaches an electric machine including a stator comprising slots with windings arranged therein. Wang ¶ 22; Fig. 1. Wang further discloses offsetting corresponding phase parts of the windings in the slots by a certain number of electrical degrees. Wang ¶¶ 26, 29. The arrangement of the phase windings in the Wang machine is selected in order to cause destructive interference to cancel “undesirable” harmonics. Wang ¶ 32. The Examiner finds that Wang discloses a stator carrying two sets of multiphase windings electrically isolated from each other and having an angular space displacement of A° electric, as claimed. Final Act. 7. The Examiner then finds that the remaining language of the claim does not relate to the structure of the device, but rather to the function of its components or the manner of operating the device. Id. The Examiner determines that this Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 7 language does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the Wang reference. Id. The Examiner further finds that Wang discloses that the machine is capable of functioning such that the stator magnetic fields cancel at specific harmonic orders. Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device such that it performs the functions set forth in claim 1 to reduce bearing loss, noise, and torque ripple. Id. at 8 (citing Wang, ¶¶ 21, 36). Appellant argues, without explanation or support, that claim 1’s limitations are structural, not functional. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant also argues that Wang does not teach or suggest that the angular space displacement A° electric is the same value as the phase shift between current through the windings. Id. Appellant acknowledges that Wang teaches an angular space displacement and a phase shift, but argues that because Wang does not suggest these as having the same value, the reference does not render the claim obvious. Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. It is well established that when there is a reason to conclude that a limitation is functional, and the structure of the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner has established that the limitations are functional in nature, and that the structure of Wang is capable of performing the claimed function. Final Act. 7–8. Moreover, the Examiner has provided a persuasive Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 8 rationale as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed function. Id. Appellant has not provided sufficient persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to refute the Examiner’s conclusions. Appellant’s unsupported statement asserting that the limitations are structural does not constitute persuasive evidence that can rebut the Examiner’s position. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[a]ttorney argument is not evidence” and cannot rebut other admitted evidence). Appellant’s further argument that the Wang reference does not teach a phase shift of equal value to the angular space displacement fails to address and refute the Examiner’s position that Wang is capable of functioning in the same manner as claim 1 and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Wang’s machine to do so. As such, Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In view of the foregoing we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 14–16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang. Rejections IV, V, and VI – Obviousness over Wang in combination with other references Appellant has not presented any separate, substantive arguments with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of any claims other than claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4. Accordingly, we sustain the remaining the rejections for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1 and Rejection III. Appeal 2020-004632 Application 15/435,777 9 CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) are not sustained, and the rejections of claims 1–5, 7–10 and 13–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are sustained. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 15 112(a) Written Description 2, 15 2, 15 112(b) Indefiniteness 2, 15 1–3, 5, 14–16, 18 103 Wang 1–3, 5, 14–16, 18 7–8, 10, 13 103 Wang, Hao 7–8, 10, 13 4, 17 102 Wang, Tanaka 4, 17 9 103 Wang, Hao, Tanaka 9 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–10, 13–18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED