Ex Parte Brighton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2013

11421726 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2013)

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.
11/421,726 06/01/2006 Trevor Anthony Brighton 4862-001 3021
22429 7590 12/06/2013
LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
BONZELL, PHILIP J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte TREVOR ANTHONY BRIGHTON,
MARTIN JOHN ELMS, and MAXWELL WILLIAM JONES
____________________

Appeal 2012-001129
Application 11/421,726
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001129
Application 11/421,726
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 7-15, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of deploying an aircraft landing gear movable
between a stowed position and a deployed position, the method
comprising the steps of:
providing an aircraft including a landing gear assembly,
the landing gear assembly including the aircraft landing gear
and a deployment mechanism, the deployment mechanism
including a releasable catch,
supporting at least part of the weight of the aircraft
landing gear by way of the releasable catch,
applying a lifting force to the aircraft landing gear to
relieve at least part of the load sustained by the releasable catch,
and then
releasing the catch, and
effecting downward movement of the aircraft landing
gear to the deployed position.

REFERENCES
Winter
Dowty
US 2,444,319
US 3,136,506
Jun. 29, 1948
Jun. 9, 1964

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Winter.
Appeal 2012-001129
Application 11/421,726
3
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Winter.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Winter and Dowty.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Winter
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, the steps of “applying a lifting
force to the aircraft landing gear to relieve at least part of the load sustained
by the releasable catch, and then releasing the catch.” App. Br., Clms.
App’x (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Winter discloses all of
the recited method steps including “a lifting force from an[] actuator (43) is
applied to the landing gear (35 and 47) to relieve part of the load sustained
by the releasable catch, then the catch (57) is release[d] and then the aircraft
landing gear (13) is deployed and lowered with the actuator (43).” Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the step of applying the lifting force does not
relieve part of the load on the releasable catch. In particular, Appellants
argue that
As soon as the latch hook (57) no longer rests on the latch pin
(49) it exerts no downwards force on it. At this exact point,
according to the Third Law, the latch pin (49) then exerts no
upwards force on the latch hook (57). Up to the point when the
releasable catch (57) (and the landing gear) is released, the latch
pin (49) has moved downwards. Thus, rotation of the latch pin
(49) does not exert any upwards force on the releasable catch
(57). Therefore, there is no lifting force applied before a
releasable catch is released.
Hence, it can be seen that, in Winter, the catch is released
and then at the same time the landing gear is deployed. That is,
the catch must be released - and the latch pin (49) slide from
Appeal 2012-001129
Application 11/421,726
4
underneath latch hook (57) - in order for there to be any (and,
inevitably, a total) load relief on the latch pin (49). Therefore,
there would be no separate “relieving” step prior to the
“release” and “deployment” steps.
App. Br. 17-18.
In response, the Examiner further finds
The hook (57) goes from resting on the pin (29) and therefore
has a load on it but then when the pin (29) is moved from under
the hook (57) the landing gear drops. In that movement there is
a moment where the load on the hook (57) is relieved in part as
it is not an instantaneous movement from the hook (57) holding
the landing gear up and therefore holding a load, to the hook
(57) being free and there being no load on the catch (57).
Ans. 9.
We find the Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. The Examiner
finds that Winter discloses that movement of the releasable catch (hook 57)
relieves part of the load on the releasable catch (hook 57). However, the
Examiner has erred by failing to explain how the releasable catch (hook 57)
of Winter moves prior to being released during the “releasing step.” As
such, the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the application of force on the landing gear during the “applying step”
relieves part of the load on the releasable catch prior to the “releasing step”
as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-5, 11-13, and 20 which depend therefrom, as anticipated by Winter.

Obviousness over Winter
Claims 7-10 depend from independent claim 1. App. Br., Clms.
App’x. The Examiner relies on the same erroneous findings, discussed
above, with regard to the “applying step” and the “releasing step.” Ans. 6-7.
Appeal 2012-001129
Application 11/421,726
5
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 as
unpatentable over Winter.

Obviousness over Winter and Dowty
Claims 14 and 15 depend from independent claim 1. App. Br., Clms.
App’x. The Examiner relies on the same erroneous findings, discussed
above, with regard to the “applying step” and the “releasing step.” Ans. 7.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 as
unpatentable over Winter and Dowty.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-
15, and 20 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls