Ex Parte Cox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2014

12042030 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL ALAN COX and EMRAY GOOSSEN
____________

Appeal 2012-010034
Application 12/042,0301
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he Real Party of Interest is Honeywell
International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey, the assignee of record.”
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-010034
Application 12/042,030

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicle comprising:
a first thruster;
a first duct configured to direct airflow generated by the
first thruster;
a second thruster;
a second duct configured to direct airflow generated by
the second thruster; and
a transport unit formed between the first duct and the
second duct and configured to transport a person.

Rejections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Goossen (US 2006/0192047 A1, pub. Aug. 31, 2006).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8–11, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Goossen.
Claims 4, 12, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Goossen and Wen (US 4,049,218, iss. Sept. 20, 1977).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Goossen
The Examiner finds Goossen’s pod 300 is a transport unit and
comprises a chair. Ans. 5 (citing Goossen, Fig. 3, claims 1–13). The
Examiner explains that pod 300 is a payload pod used to transport, among
other things, other cargo to be dropped or emplaced. See id. at 9, Goossen,
¶ 55. Further, the Examiner explains that the object to be dropped in
Appeal 2012-010034
Application 12/042,030

3
Goossen could be replaced by a person and therefore, pod 300 is configured
to transport a person. Id.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that Goossen’s
pod 300 constitutes “a transport unit,” which is “configured to transport a
person,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9 (Ans. 5, 9), is improper.
Reply Br. 6. The Appellants assert that the Examiner does not provide a
reasonable basis for finding that pod 300 is configured to transport a person,
including an explanation concerning how pod 300, particularly without
modification, is sized to receive a person or is configured to bear the weight
of a person. See id.
The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. Although Goossen
discloses that pod 300 may contain an object to be dropped (Goossen ¶ 55),
the Examiner does not explain how the characteristics of Goossen’s
contained object, e.g., the object’s size, shape, and weight, evidence that the
size, shape, and weight of a person would be able to be contained. Further,
containing person in pod 300 may require different constraints than
containing an object. As such, the Examiner’s finding that pod 300 is
configured to transport a person because pod 300 contains an object lacks
adequate support.
As for the Examiner’s finding that pod 300 comprises a chair (Ans. 5),
the Examiner provides a definition of the word “chair” “as any of various
devices that hold up or support” (id. at 10). However, as pointed out by the
Appellants, the Examiner does not reference the source of the definition.
Reply Br. 7–8. Additionally, if even the definition were to be properly
referenced and accepted as included as within the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the Examiner’s finding that pod 300 comprises a chair
Appeal 2012-010034
Application 12/042,030

4
appears to be based on speculation and lacks adequate support. See Appeal
Br. 7–8. For example, the Examiner does not explain how pod 300 could act
as a chair, rather the Examiner merely determines in a conclusory manner,
“pod 300 is an element that would hold up or support a person.” Ans. 10.
As such, the Examiner’s finding that pod 300 is configured to transport a
person because pod 300 comprises a chair lacks adequate support.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7 as anticipated by
Goossen is not sustained.

Obviousness based on Goossen
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 8–11, and 13–15 relies on
the finding that that Goossen’s pod 300 constitutes “a transport unit” that is
“configured to transport a person,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9.
As discussed above, that finding lacks adequate support.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 8–11, and 13–15 as
unpatentable over Goossen is not sustained.

Obviousness based on Goossen and Wen
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 12 relies upon the
inadequately supported finding discussed above with regards to claims 1 and
9. See Ans. 8. Although the Examiner correctly finds that Wen discloses a
chair 11 in a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicle, the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is based on a replacement of Goossen’s pod 300,
as a chair, for Wen’s chair 11. See id. Because the Examiner does not
adequately support the finding that Goossen’s pod 300 comprises a chair, the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness lacks adequate support.
Appeal 2012-010034
Application 12/042,030

5
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 12 as unpatentable
over Goossen and Wen is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 includes the same
inadequately supported finding discussed above regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 12. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16, and its dependent claims, as unpatentable over Goossen and Wen
is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–20.

REVERSED

Klh