Ex Parte DeFrancesco

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

13006808 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/006,808 01114/2011
88326 7590 02/10/2016
Kinney&Lange,P.A.
The Kinney & Lange Building
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory L. DeFrancesco
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.
PA0016385U-U74.12-240KL 5323
EXAMINER
DAGER, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
smkomarec@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY L. DEFRANCESCO
Appeal 2014-000448 1,2
Application 13/006,808
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Jan. 14,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed July 11, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 27, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Feb. 20, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Aug. 5, 2013).
2 According to Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation . . . . Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is a
subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-000448
Application 13/006,808
According to Appellant, "the invention relates to bleed air control
systems for aircraft environmental control systems." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 4,
and 11 are the only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce below
claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims.
1. An integrated electronic engine control and
environmental control system bleed control apparatus for use
with an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
an electronic engine controller (EEC);
an environmental control system (ECS) bleed controller for
controlling a flow of bleed air from the aircraft engine to an
ECS located in an aircraft fuselage; and
a housing containing the EEC and the ECS bleed controller for
mounting on or near the aircraft engine.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Anderson (US 2009/0298407 Al, pub. Dec. 3, 2009)
and "The Case for Distributed Engine Control in Turbo-Shaft Engine
Systems," Prepared for the 65th Annual Forum and Technology Display
sponsored by the American Helicopter Society, May 29, 2009, by Dennis E.
Culley et al. ("Culley"). See Final Action 2--4.
3 We modify the rejection to no longer reference claim 9, inasmuch as the
Examiner entered Appellant's request to cancel the claim. See Amendment
after Final filed Apr. 2, 2013; see Advisory Action mailed Apr. 8, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-000448
Application 13/006,808
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2 and 3 depend, recites "a
housing containing the EEC [(electronic engine control)] and the ECS
[(environmental control system)] bleed controller for mounting on or near
the aircraft engine." Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellant argues the
rejection is in error because neither Anderson nor Culley discloses both an
EEC and an ECS bleed controller in the same housing, and because the
Examiner does not establish that it would have been obvious to put both the
EEC and the ECS bleed controller in the same housing. See Appeal
Br. 8-12; see also Reply Br. 3-7. After reviewing Appellant's reasons that
it would not be obvious to place an EEC and an ECS bleed controller in the
same housing, we conclude that the Examiner establishes that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the rejection, and Appellant does not
persuade us that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3.
Specifically, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's findings that "Anderson discloses a system for use
with an aircraft engine to control an aircraft cabin environment,
comprising ... an electronic engine controller ('EEC') ... [and] an
environmental control system ('ECS') that in part controls a flow of bleed
air from the aircraft engine to the ECS," but that "Anderson ... does not
disclose a housing containing the EEC and an ECS bleed controller for
mounting on or near the aircraft engine." Final Action 2. We also
determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
findings that "Culley discloses distributing or moving various portions of
aircraft control elements to more efficient locations, such as within the same
3
Appeal2014-000448
Application 13/006,808
housing as a separate control element that relies on similar sensors and
actuators." Id. (referencing Culley 8, col. 1 ). Indeed, Culley discloses that
advantages may result from locating controllers that interact with one
another in a same housing-"U sing space within the ... housing [by
locating controllers within the same housing] minimizes additional weight.
Weight from the distribution of electrical power is also minimized [by
placing controllers within the same housing]." Culley 8, col. 1. Although
Culley does speak in specific terms relating to, for example, a fuel delivery
unit (FDU), a permanent magnetic alternator (PMA), and other components
of a distributed engine control system, we determine that the stated and
similar advantages reasonably would be expected to result from placing in
the same housing other controllers that interact with one another, such as
Anderson's "electronic engine controller ('EEC') ... [and] environmental
control system ('ECS') ... that in part controls a flow of bleed air from the
aircraft engine to the ECS" (Final Action 2), even assuming that such an
EEC and an ECS controller do not share the same type of "close, functional
relationship [as] the FDU and the EEC." Reply Br. 5.
Thus, in summary, although neither reference discloses an EEC and
an ECS controller in the same housing, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusions that modifying Anderson to place both an EEC and an ECS
controller in the same housing would have been obvious, based on Culley's
teaching that controllers may be placed in the same housing to achieve
weight and space savings. For these reasons, the Examiner's proposed
modification of placing an EEC and an ECS controller in the same housing
amounts to the use of well-known principles to achieve predictable
advantages, despite the lack of a precise teaching to place both controllers in
4
Appeal2014-000448
Application 13/006,808
the same housing. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 418
(2007).
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 4, as well as
claims 5-8 and 10 depending therefrom, is erroneous for the same reasons as
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 4--8 and 10.
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 11, as well as
claim 12 depending therefrom, is erroneous for the same reasons as claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 13. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-8 and 10-12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5