Ex Parte Doyle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13015359 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/015,359 01/27/2011 Thomas M. DOYLE JR. 014.5002 (GDATP-2) 2477
73411 7590 12/22/2016
T.KTlInhal rfiD-fzISvO EXAMINER
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
DIXON, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
docketing@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. DOYLE JR. and TRAVIS L. JOHNSTON
Appeal 2014-0067771
Application 13/015,3592
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1—16 and 18—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 22, 2013), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 27,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 27, 2011), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 26, 2014), and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed June 7, 2013).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is “General
Dynamics - OTS, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-006777
Application 13/015,359
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “generally relates to a payload mount
adapter assembly and more particularly relates to a payload mount adapter
assembly for mounting a payload to an aircraft.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1, 6, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A payload mount adapter assembly for use with
a [sic] an aircraft, the payload mount adapter assembly
comprising:
an upper section configured for mounting to the
aircraft; and
a lower section configured to receive a payload, the
lower section being releasably engaged with the upper
section such that the lower section is substantially
unadjustable with respect to the upper section when the
lower section is in a fixed state and the lower section is
substantially adjustable with respect to the upper section
when the lower section is in a released state.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10, and 12—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gyre (US 5,996,463, iss. Dec. 7, 1999).
Final Act. 2.
Claims 5, 9, 11, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gyre. Id. at 4.3
3 The Examiner has indicated dependent claim 17 as allowable over the
prior art. See Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2014-006777
Application 13/015,359
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at
least by a preponderance of the evidence.4
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires the payload mount adapter assembly to
comprise “an upper section configured for mounting to the aircraft.” Each
of the independent claims 6 and 18 recites a similar limitation that the upper
section be configured for mounting to the payload mount.
The Examiner finds that Gyre discloses an “upper section
(unnumbered) mounted via rings 3 and fingers 7 to [a] carrier strut or
payload mount 5.” Ans. 2, citing Gyre Fig. 1 and col. 2,11. 35—41. The
Examiner further finds that Gyre’s weapon support 1 discloses the lower
section as claimed. Final Act. 2.
Figure 1 of Gyre (reproduced below) discloses a weapon support 1
that is fastened using fingers 7 which pass through hooking rings 3 under the
carrier strut 5. Gyre, col. 2,11. 35—38. Gyre does not discuss the structure of
the unnumbered part between the strut 5 and weapon support 1. From
Figure 1, it appears that the unnumbered structure comprises plates covering
the weapon support 1.
4 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-006777
Application 13/015,359
Fig. 1 of Gyre showing the weapon support, rings, and fingers.
The Appellants’ argument that Gyre teaches that it is the lower
section, as opposed to the upper section, that is configured for mounting to
strut 5 via rings and fingers (Reply Br. 2—3) is persuasive. Even assuming
arguendo that the unnumbered structure of Gyre’s Figure 1 is the upper
section of the assembly, and that the claim does not limit the mounting to a
specific structure (see Ans. 2—3), it is not clear that the upper section is
configured for mounting to strut 5. We agree with the Appellants that Gyre
discloses that the rings and fingers, by which the structure is mounted to the
strut, are located on the lower section and on the strut. See Appeal Br. 10,
4
Appeal 2014-006777
Application 13/015,359
Reply Br. 2—3. Gyre does not disclose any structure of the upper section that
would be capable of mounting either the upper section or the adapter
assembly to the strut 5.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error on the part on the
Examiner in the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 18. Thus, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 102(b) of the independent
claims 1 and 6 and claims 2—4, 7, 8, 10, and 12—16, dependent therefrom.
We also do not sustain the rejection under § 103(a) of independent claim 18
and claims 19 and 20, dependent therefrom. The Examiner relies on the
same inadequate finding in the rejection under § 103(a) of dependent claims
5, 9, and 11, and thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of those claims.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, 10, and 12—16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 5, 9, 11, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5