Klaus B¿ttner et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 5, 2019

13876880 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/876,880 03/29/2013 20151 7590 12/09/2019 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HENRY M FEIEREISEN 35 West 35th Street SUITE 900 NEW YORK, NY 10001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Klaus B littner 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. BUETTNER-9 2349 EXAMINER TRUONG, THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2834 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2019 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): INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KLAUS BUTTNER, MICHAEL MULLER, and NORBERT WOHNER Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 Technology Center 2800 Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 33-36, 39-52, 56, and 58-60, which are all the claims pending in this application. An oral hearing was held September 26, 2019, and a transcript of that hearing was made of record on October 15, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 We use the word "Appellant" to refer to "applicant" as defined in 37 C.F .R. Â§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's application relates to a squirrel-cage rotor for an asynchronous machine. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 33 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 33. A rotor bar of a squirrel-cage rotor of an asynchronous machine, comprising tangential outer faces and radial outer faces, said radial outer faces being contoured to define an engagement area to permit a movement of the rotor bar inwardly when a short- circuit ring has been cast at an end face onto a laminated rotor core of the squirrel-cage rotor by die-casting and contracts, wherein a contractible die-casting material of the short- circuit ring fills a slot in the laminated rotor core and fixes the rotor bar in the slot on a radially inwardly oriented slot base, wherein the rotor bar and the material of the short-circuit ring in the slot form a cage bar of the squirrel-cage rotor, wherein said engagement area has grooves extended along and inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as well as being inclined to each other and the rotational axis. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 33, 39, 44, and 46-49 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Buttner (US 2011/03163 80 A 1; Dec. 29, 2011), Nakamura (US 5,444,319; Aug. 22, 1995), Naruse (JP 10322990 A; Apr. 12, 1998), and Viggiano (CH683957 Al; Dec. 22, 1978). Final Act. 3-11. The Examiner adds Aiga (JP2007228798 A; Sept. 6, 2007) in rejecting claims 34 and 45 (Final Act. 12-13); Morishita (JP 2005278372 A; June 10, 2005) in rejecting claims 35 and 36 (Final Act. 13-14); Inoue 2 Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 (EP 0649211 A2; Oct. 14, 1994) in rejecting claims 40 and 43 (Final Act. 14-15); Nakamura '007 (JP 53114007 A; May 10, 1978) in rejecting claims 41 and 42 (Final Act. 16-17); Voll (DE 1116311 B; Nov. 2, 1961) in rejecting claims 50, 58, and 59 (Final Act. 17-18); Sakane (JP 406284608 A; Oct. 7, 1994) in rejecting claim 51 (Final Act. 18-19); Marles (CA 1119651 Al; Mar. 9, 1982) and Sakane in rejecting claim 52 (Final Act. 19-20); Nemoto (US 2006/0163969 Al; July 27, 2006) in rejecting claim 56 (Final Act. 20); and Hanai (JP 361069343 A; Apr. 9, 1986) in rejecting claim 60 (Final Act. 20-21). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Buttner, Nakamura, Naruse, and Viggiano teaches or suggests "radial outer faces being contoured to define an engagement area ... wherein said engagement area has grooves extended along and inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as well as being inclined to each other and the rotational axis." Final Act. 5-7. In particular, the Examiner finds Naruse teaches an engagement area with grooves arranged as claimed. Final Act. 5 ( citing Naruse Fig. 7). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because N arose is silent regarding an engagement area with grooves extended along and inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as well as being inclined to each other and to the rotational axis of the squirrel-cage rotor. Br. 7-8. According to Appellant, the portion of Figure 7 identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed "grooves" is merely "tapering," not grooves. Sept. 26, 2019 Oral Hearing Tr. 7:3-21, 10:17-12:8. We agree with Appellant. Figure 7 ofNaruse, as annotated by the Examiner, is shown below. 3 Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 Annotated Figure 7 depicts an engagement area with two inclined portions identified by the Examiner with arrows labeled "Grooves." Ans. 3. We agree with Appellant that the identified inclined portions do not correspond to the claimed "grooves" that "extend[] along" and are "inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as well as being inclined to each other and the rotational axis." Instead, the identified inclined portions depict a flat surface of the conductor bar inclined at an angle. The Examiner has not explained how such an inclined surface corresponds to the claim limitation "wherein said engagement area has grooves extended along and inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as well as being inclined to each other and the rotational axis." See Final Act. 5, Ans. 3, 6. For these reasons, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 as unpatentable over Buttner, Nakamura, Naruse, and Viggiano. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 33. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 44, which recites commensurate limitations. The Examiner has not found that any of the references added in rejecting the various dependent claims teaches or suggests the claim limitation "wherein said engagement area has grooves extended along and inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotor as 4 Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 well as being inclined to each other and the rotational axis." See Final Act. 12-21. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 34-36, 39-43, 45-52, 56, and 58-60. CONCLUSION 33, 39, 44, 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 33, 39, 44, 46-49 Naruse, Vi rnno 46-49 34,45 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 34,45 Naruse, Viggiano, Ai a 35,36 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 35,36 Naruse, Viggiano, Morishita 40,43 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 40,43 Naruse, Viggiano, Inoue 41, 42 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 41, 42 Naruse, Viggiano, Nakamura '007 50,58,59 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 50,58,59 Naruse, Viggiano, Voll 51 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 51 Naruse, Viggiano, Sakane 52 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 52 Naruse, Viggiano, Marles 56 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 56 Naruse, Viggiano, Nemoto 60 103 Buttner, Nakamura, 60 Naruse, Viggiano, Hanai 5 Appeal2018-002765 Application 13/876,880 I Overall Outcome REVERSED 6 133-36, 39-52, 56, 58-60