Ex Parte NISHIKAWA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 15, 2018

14196594 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/196,594 03/04/2014
23373 7590 08/23/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ken NISHIKAWA
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.
Q210344 4787
EXAMINER
ALMA WR!, MAGED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEN NISHIKAWA, MASASHI NAKAMURA, and
SHOGO OKAMOTO
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a rotary electric machine. Claim 1, the sole pending
1 Appellant is the applicant, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
February 17, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
independent claim, illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below with contested language italicized:
1. A rotary electric machine comprising:
a stator, in which a coil is mounted on a stator core
having an annular shape, which includes a coil end which is
protruded from an end surface of the stator;
a coil terminal which is protruded from an end portion of
the coil end, in a coil end direction; and
an arc-shaped bus-bar unit which wraps a bus bar and in
which a connecting portion configured to connect the coil
terminal protrudes in an inner-outer diameter direction of the
stator,
wherein a neutral-point bus-bar unit, which includes a
neutral-point bus bar, and phase's bus-bar units, which include
phase's bus bars respectively connected to the coil of each
phase, are laminated and arranged in a protrusion direction of
the coil terminal, in the bus-bar unit, and
the neutral-point bus-bar unit is arranged between the
phase's bus-bar units.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix, emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered June 3, 2016 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejections in
the Examiner's Answer entered June 26, 2017 ("Ans."):
I. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that
the inventors regard as the invention;
II. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Takasaki2 (US 2014/0183993 Al, published July 1, 2014) in view of Ishida
2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's reliance on US 2014/0183993
Al as an English translation of WO 2013/042248. Accordingly, citations to
"Takasaki" in this decision refer to the published U.S. patent application.
2
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
(US 2012/0086292 Al, published April 12, 2012);
III. Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Takasaki in view of Ishida and Lukenich (US 2005/0023910 Al, published
February 3, 2005);
IV. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Takasaki in view of Ishida and Chamberlin (US
2014/0014390 Al, published January 16, 2014);
V. Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 under§ 103 as unpatentable
over Takasaki in view of Ishida, Lukenich, and Chamberlin; and
VI. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takasaki
in view of Ishida and Fouse (US 2,871,285, issued September 4, 1953).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because Appellant does not contest this
rejection, and reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth below.
Rejection I
We summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because Appellant does not contest this rejection. App.
Br. 4--12; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring that "arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection ... [and that]
any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board"); see also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Mar. 2014) ("If a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has
3
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner's answer.").
Rejections II-VI
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. In explaining our reasoning, we need consider only claim 1, the sole
independent claim on appeal, which recites a rotary electric machine
comprising, inter alia, a stator in which a coil end of a coil mounted on a
stator core is protruded from an end surface of the stator, a coil terminal
protruded from an end portion of the coil end, and a bus bar unit in which a
neutral-point bus-bar unit and phase's bus-bar units are laminated and
arranged in a protrusion direction of the coil terminal, and the neutral-point
bus-bar unit is arranged between the phase's bus-bar units.
The Examiner finds that Takasaki discloses stator 10 that includes coil
18 mounted on stator core 12, coil end 20 protruded from an end surface of
the stator, a coil terminal protruded from an end portion of coil end 20, and
bus-bar unit 26 including neutral-point bus-bar unit 36N and phase's bus-bar
units 36U, 36V, 36W laminated and arranged in a protrusion direction of the
coil terminal. Final Act. 4--8 (citing Takasaki ,r 12; Figs. 1--4, 6a, 6b). The
Examiner finds that "Takasaki fails to explicitly show the neutral-point bus-
bar unit is arranged between the phase's bus-bar units," and the Examiner
relies on Ishida to address this feature. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that Ishida discloses a stator assembly in which
neutral-point bus-bar unit 103n is arranged between phase's bus-bar units
104V, 104W, 102U, 102V, 102W. Final Act. 5, 9, 10 (citing Ishida Figs. 1,
10). The Examiner finds that Ishida discloses that this arrangement permits
4
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
placement of a temperature detection element close to the top face of coil
end 101 e, which allows "high accuracy measurements of coil end
temperature," and enables the stator assembly to be downsized. Final Act. 5
( citing Ishida ,r 16).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of Appellant's
application to position the neutral point bus-bar unit disclosed in Takasaki
between Takasaki's phase's bus-bar units as disclosed in Ishida "to the
advantage of saving space and downsize the stator assembly by making it
compact and place a temperature detection element closer to the top face of
the coil end to get high accuracy measurements of coil end temperature."
Final Act. 5; Ans. 6.
Takasaki discloses stator 10, including bus bar module 26 having
main body 28 in which neutral point bus bar 36N and three phases bus bars
36U, 36V, 36W are disposed. ,r,r 27, 30, 31, 36; Figs. 2--4. As Appellant
points out (Reply Br. 6), Takasaki discloses that bus bar module 26 includes
resin-molded insulating member 40 integrally molded with neutral point bus
bar 36N and phases bus bars 36U, 36V, 36W, such that insulating member
40 covers the bus bars and insulates them from each other and from the
outside. ,r 37; Fig. 4.
Ishida discloses stator 100, including neutral bus bar 103n positioned
between phase's bus bars 102U, 102W in a circumferential direction. ,r,r 32-
3 5; Fig. 1. Ishida discloses that the neutral bus bar has a structure designed
to hold a temperature detection element. ,r,r 11, 13; Fig. 10. Ishida discloses
that incorporating the temperature detection element within the neutral bus
bar allows accurate temperature measurement at the top face of coil end
5
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
101 e, and saves space in the stator (permits the stator to be downsized.) ,r
16; Fig. 10.
In view of these disclosures in Takasaki and Ishida, as Appellant
correctly argues, the Examiner does not adequately explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to rearrange Takasaki's
neutral point bus bar 36N and phase's bus bars 36U, 36V, 36W so as to
position neutral point bus bar 36N between the phases' bus bars, as disclosed
in Ishida. App. Br. 7-8. Although the Examiner asserts that such an
arrangement would allow accurate temperature measurement of the coil end
and save space by permitting incorporation of a temperature detection
element within Takasaki's neutral bus bar 36N close to the top face of the
coil end as disclosed in Ishida (Ans. 6), Takasaki's neutral bus bar 36N is
covered by integrally molded insulting member 40. Consequently, as
Appellant correctly argues, incorporation of a temperature detection element
as disclosed in Ishida within Takasaki's neutral bus bar 36N would result in
the temperature detection element being covered by insulating member 40.
Reply Br. 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
covering the temperature detection element with insulting member 40 would
likely compromise the accuracy of temperature readings taken by the
temperature detection element.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide a persuasive, reasoned
explanation supported by objective evidence for why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to rearrange Takasaki' s neutral point bus bar
36N and phase's bus bars 36U, 36V, 36W so as to position neutral point bus
bar 36N between the phases' bus bars, as recited in claim 1. It follows that
the Examiner fails to establish that the combined disclosures of Takasaki and
6
Appeal2017-010988
Application 14/196,594
Ishida would have suggested a rotary electric machine comprising a bus bar
unit in which a neutral-point bus-bar unit and phase's bus-bar units are
laminated and arranged in a protrusion direction of the coil terminal, and the
neutral-point bus-bar unit is arranged between the phase's bus-bar units, as
required by claim 1.
The Examiner has not explained how the additional references relied
upon in grounds of rejection III-VI cure the above-noted deficiencies in the
Examiner's combination of Takasaki and Ishida.
Consistent with Appellant's arguments, we therefore do not sustain
the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
112 (b) and reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-1 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7