HINO, Tatsuro et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14758817 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/758,817 07/01/2015 Tatsuro HINO Q220709 6901
23373 7590 11/04/2019
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
DESAI, NAISHADH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TATSURO HINO, TOMOHIRO BESSHO,
KAZUYUKI IWAMOTO, HIRONORI TSUIKI, SHOGO OKAMOTO,
KEN NISHIKAWA, and MASAYA INOUE1
____________

Appeal 2019-000730
Application 14/758,817
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and MICHAEL G.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 8–31. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation.
Appeal 2019-000730
Application 14/758,817

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 8 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
8. A rotary electric machine comprising:
a stator comprising:
an annular stator core; and
concentrated winding coils that are mounted to respective
teeth of said stator core; and
a rotor,
insulators comprising:
a trunk portion; and
first and second flange portions that are linked to two
longitudinal ends of an upper surface of said trunk portion,
respectively being disposed such that longitudinal
directions of said trunk portions are oriented in a radial
direction of said teeth, and so as to place bottom surfaces of
said trunk portions alongside two axial end surfaces of said
teeth, and
said concentrated winding coils being configured by
winding conductor wires so as to be wound in multiple layers
around said teeth so as to pass through a concave space that is
formed by said trunk portions and said first and second flange
portions at two axial ends of said teeth,
wherein:
said second flange portion of said first and second flange
portions is disposed on an end surface of a core back of said
stator core; and
a temperature detecting element is installed by being
inserted into an element insertion aperture that is formed
on said second flange portion so as to be able to detect a
temperature of a coil outer layer portion of said
concentrated winding coils.
Appeal 2019-000730
Application 14/758,817

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujii
(WO 2009/154035 A1; publ. Dec. 23, 2009).
2. Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, and 31 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujii,
further in view of Uchida et al. (hereafter “Uchida”) (US 6,153,954;
iss. Nov. 28, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellant’s position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner’s
decision to reject the pending claims for the reasons provided by Appellant
in the record, and we add the following for emphasis.
We agree with Appellant that Fujii does not teach or suggest a
temperature detecting element installed at a location so as to be able to
detect a temperature of a coil outer layer portion of said concentrated
winding coils. Appeal Br. 5–9. This configuration is shown in Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-000730
Application 14/758,817

4
Figures 4 and 5, reproduced in annotated form below.

Figure 5 shows that temperature detecting element 27 is located
such that it can measure the temperature of a coil outer layer portion
27
core back of stator core 9
Appeal 2019-000730
Application 14/758,817

5
of the concentrated winding coils 10 (these winding coils 10 are
shown on the left in Figure 5 (not labelled) and labelled as element 10
in Figure 4 above).
It is not disputed that Fujii’s temperature detector is located on
an inner layer. Ans. 2. In a change of position, the Examiner now
views claim 8 as not requiring the location be at an outermost layer,
and refers to an annotated version of Fujii’s Figure 3 in this regard.
Ans. 2–3.
However, as Appellant explains on pages 5–6 of the Reply
Brief, there is no support that the area between the identified point
annotated by the Examiner on page 3 of the Answer (regarding Fujii’s
Figure 3) and the outer edge of the temperature detecting element 52
is filled with a plurality of coils. So, we agree with Appellant that this
new position of the Examiner’s fails to disclose or suggest the
expressly claimed feature of a temperature detecting element located
so as to be able to detect a “temperature of a coil outer layer portion of
said concentrated winding coils”. Furthermore, as Appellant
discusses on pages 4–5 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s claim
interpretation is not reasonable in light of the Specification.
In view of the above, we reverse each rejection (the secondary
reference of Uchida applied in Rejection 2 was not used by the
Examiner to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Fujii).
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED