Ex Parte Eadie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2013

11565697 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM J. EADIE and MARK W. SCOTT
____________________

Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 10-13, 17-19, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “an aircraft load management
system that determines the position of an aircraft cargo hook through a
wireless communication system.” Spec., para. [0010]. Claims 1 and 18 are
the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A cargo hook system for a rotary-wing aircraft,
comprising:
a cargo hook;
at least one first wireless device proximate said cargo
hook;
a wireless system comprising at least one second wireless
device in wireless communication with said at least one first
wireless device;
a second system in communication with said wireless
system to determine, based on at least information associated
with said wireless communication between said at least one first
wireless device and said at least one second wireless device, a
position of said cargo hook with respect to said aircraft,
wherein said at least one second wireless device is in a fixed
relationship with respect to said aircraft; and
a display in communication with said second system to
display said position of said cargo hook with respect to said
aircraft.

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
(1) claims 1-7, 10-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention
(Ans. 3);
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

3
(2) claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Asseo (US 3,838,836, iss. Oct. 1, 1974) and Shaw (US
2004/0026348 A1, pub. Feb. 12, 2004) (Ans. 3-9);
(3) claims 5, 6, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Asseo, Shaw, and Roberts (US 5,499,785, iss. Mar. 19, 1996) (Ans. 9-10);
and
(4) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Asseo,
Shaw, and Willebrand (US 6,763,195 B1, iss. Jul. 13, 2004) (Ans. 10).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite
Claim 1 recites: “A cargo hook system . . . comprising: . . . at least one
first wireless device proximate said cargo hook; a wireless system
comprising at least one second wireless device in wireless communication
with said at least one first wireless device . . . .” Claims App’x. The
Examiner determined that it was unclear whether the wireless system
comprised additional structure beyond that of the second wireless device or
comprised only the second wireless device, and the Examiner rejected
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Ans. 3, 11.
Appellants contend that “claim 1 is clear on its face in that the
wireless system comprises at least one first wireless device and at least one
second wireless device.” App. Br. 5. Claim 1 uses the transition term
“comprising” in connection with the “wireless system,” which is inclusive or
open-ended and does not exclude additional elements. See, e.g., Genentech,
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

4
Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (“Comprising” is a
term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are
essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within
the scope of the claim). Because of the open-ended transition term, the
wireless system does not have to, but permissibly could, include the first
wireless device.
The test for definiteness under § 112, second paragraph, is whether
“those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is
read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel
Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed, namely, at least one first wireless device proximate the cargo hook,
along with at least one second wireless device in wireless communication
with the at least one first wireless device. For the foregoing reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, and 17 as indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Asseo and Shaw
Claims 1-4, 10-12, and 17-19
Appellants argue claims 1-4, 10-12, and 17-19 as a group. App. Br. 5-
12. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
The Examiner finds that Asseo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1
except for “any elements specific to a wireless system” and “a display.”
Ans. 4. With respect to the elements specific to a wireless system, the
Examiner finds that Shaw teaches first wireless device 24 local to a crane
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

5
warning device 4 that can be incorporated directly into a ball 3 of the crane
and second wireless device 49 local to a central control device 11 coupled to
remote sensors and/or camera units 12, both devices 24, 49 forming a
wireless system. Ans. 6; Shaw, paras. [0017] and [0019] and figs. 6-7. The
Examiner concludes that:
It would . . . have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art . . . to replace the data cable (16) of Asseo with
the wireless system comprising first and second wireless
devices of Shaw, to reduce the number of cables suspended
from the helicopter and to remove any risk of the cable tangling
with the suspension lines.
Ans. 6.
Appellants contend that “[o]ne would never look to the field of
ground based heavy equipment to provide a cargo hook system for a
helicopter” such that the Examiner must have relied on the “impermissible
usage of hindsight in an attempt to recreate Appellant’s device.” App. Br. 7.
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive because, as pointed out by the
Examiner, the combined teachings of Asseo and Shaw would “reduce the
number of cables suspended from the helicopter and . . . remove any risk of
the cable tangling with the suspension lines.” Ans. 6. Additionally, the
combination of the teachings would result in a safer system. Ans. 8; See
Shaw, paras. [0035]-[0036]. For example, the teachings of Shaw include the
ability to visually see an attached load and tackle the tendency of a
suspended load to swing or twist, thereby supporting why one providing a
cargo hook system for a helicopter would have looked to the field of ground
based heavy equipment having a ball. Shaw teaches increasing the
information available to the operator about the position of the load to
improve safety. Ans. 5; See also Shaw, para. [0008] (describing obtaining
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

6
“a ‘birds eye view’” of the ball to improve safety and efficiency); Shaw,
para. [0029] (describing that “[t]he visual indication provides the operator
with additional information as to the position of the load, ball and
workers.”); and Shaw, para. [0036] (describing that “the mounting of the
camera on the carriage allows the operator to see around blind ends of the
building as the building is constructed such that the crane operator may see
areas which would otherwise be obstructed.”). Shaw also teaches how to
address the problem of loads swinging or rotating while moving. Ans. 3, 5,
11-12; See also Shaw, para. [0026] (“[A] plurality of sensors may be located
on multiple sides of the ball in the event that the ball twists.”).
Appellants have not provided persuasive reasoning or evidence
as to why the Examiner must have relied on impermissible hindsight
rather than the stated reason having a rational underpinning for
making the proposed combination. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed
Cir. 2006)).
With respect to the claim limitation relating to the display, the
Examiner finds that Shaw teaches “a central control device (11) comprising
a display (43)” and that “[t]he display may display the output of sensors
(¶ 58) or of cameras (¶ 29); Shaw teaches in ¶ 35 and 36 literally showing
the position of the hook as seen from a camera aimed using information
from the laser range finders.” Ans. 5. The Examiner then concludes that:
it would . . . have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to include the cameras and
associated sensor systems of Shaw (discussed in Shaw ¶ 35)
and the display of Shaw in the helicopter cargo system of Asseo
for purposes of safety and to allow the hook operator to be able
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

7
to adequately see and access the area around the loading beam
(Shaw ¶ 36).
Id. at 8. The Examiner also finds that Shaw teaches that “it is desirable for
reasons of safety to increase the information available to the operator about
the position of the hook.” Id. at 5.
Appellants contend that “Shaw is in no way concerned with an aircraft
and thus cannot disclose or suggest a display to display said position of said
cargo hook with respect to said aircraft as specifically claimed by
Appellant.” App. Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive because it fails to
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which is based on a
combination of Asseo and Shaw. Asseo teaches a helicopter cargo system,
i.e., an aircraft, and the Examiner’s rejection is based on modifying Asseo’s
helicopter cargo system with the display of Shaw, not incorporating the
ground-based crane of Shaw in its entirety, such that the combination
suggests the display of the position of a cargo hook with respect to an
aircraft.
Appellants next contend that “the ‘display’ of Shaw is a camera that
shows either a close-up of the ball or a view from the ball itself” (App. Br.
10), but that “the relative position of the ball with respect to the boom 2 is
simply of no consequence and cannot be shown on the Shaw ‘display.’” (Id.
at 11). In other words, the cameras of Shaw are alleged to fail to teach a
display of “the claimed relationship” of the position of the ball (analogized
with the cargo hook) with respect to the boom (analogized to the aircraft).
Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner points out that Shaw teaches
that the output of the cameras may be displayed, along with the readings of
the range find sensors. Ans. 15 (citing Shaw, paras. [0029] and [0057]-
[0058]). As stated by the Examiner:
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

8
A camera mounted on the cab would show the position of the
ball as seen from the cab and would, if applied to a helicopter,
be placed on the body of the helicopter and show the position of
the hook as seen from the helicopter. The sensor readings from
laser rangefinders mounted on portions of the helicopter body
would display the position of the hook with respect to the
helicopter.
Id; see Ans. 4 (citing Shaw, para. [0025]); See also Shaw, para. [0025] (“a
first laser range finder may be trained on and/or located within the ball to
determine the distance of the ball from the boom . . . [and] [a] second laser
range finder may be located on the boom and/or carriage and used to
determine the distance from the boom to the ground or target location where
the ball is suppose[d] to be positioned above.”). Because the sensor (e.g.,
range finder) readings are displayed, the position of the ball with respect to
the boom is displayed in Shaw. When the teachings of Shaw are applied to
the system of Asseo, a display of the position of the cargo hook with respect
to the aircraft is taught by the cited references.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner did not err
in concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious
from the combination of Asseo and Shaw, and we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4, 10-12, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 7
Appellants separately argue the patentability of dependent claim 7.
App. Br. 11-12. Claim 7 recites that the cargo hook system “further
compris[es] a wireless data link mounted to said cargo hook to communicate
load data from a load to said wireless system and through said wireless
system to said second system.” Claims App’x. Appellants contend that “the
proposed combination [of Asseo and Shaw] is simply not concerned with a
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

9
wireless data link of any sort between the cargo hook and the load itself.”
App. Br. 12 (emphasis added). Claim 7 does not actually require a wireless
data link between the cargo hook and the load, nor does claim 7 require that
the wireless device be located on the load. Ans. 16; see also Claims App’x.
Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims. In re Hiniker Co.,
150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Arguments must be commensurate in
scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982). Accordingly, Appellants’ attempt to distinguish the claimed
subject matter from the prior art based on features that are not in the claim is
not persuasive.
The Examiner found that Asseo as modified by the teachings of Shaw
teaches a wireless device located on the spreader beam system 10 of Asseo
and another on a helicopter, thereby forming a wireless link between the
two, and that such a link would meet the functional limitation of the claim
because it would be capable of transmitting any information received from
the load. Ans. 16. Appellants have not provided persuasive reasoning or
evidence to support that Asseo’s device as modified by the teachings of
Shaw would not be capable of performing the function of communicating
load data from a load to the wireless system. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
at 1478 (where Patent Office has a reason to believe that a functional feature
is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden can be shifted to an
applicant to show that the prior art structure is not capable of performing the
claimed function).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 7 would have been obvious from
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

10
the combination of Asseo and Shaw, and we sustain the rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of claims 5, 6, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Asseo, Shaw, and Roberts
Appellants argue claims 5, 6, and 23 as a group. App. Br. 12-14. We
select claim 23 as the representative claim. Claim 23 recites a method of
controlling a cargo hook system including the step of “causing a load
attached to the cargo hook to be released in response to motion of the cargo
hook becoming greater than a predetermined limit.” Claims App’x. The
Examiner found that Roberts teaches a helicopter load autojettison method,
wherein the hook is equipped with load cells which measure the weight of
the load supported by the hook and a hook release mechanism. Ans. 9
(citing Roberts, col. 6, ll. 12-19, 25-35). The Examiner concluded that “[i]t
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to
implement the load cells, solenoid actuated jawed hooks and auto-jettison
system of Roberts in the helicopter of Asseo as modified by Shaw, for the
purpose of preventing a particular line failure from potentially damaging the
helicopter.” Id. at 9-10 (citing Roberts, col. 2, ll. 6-15).
Appellants contend that Roberts only discloses auto-jettison in
response to component failure (i.e., “identification that a load no longer
exists on one hook 34a as identified by load cells 48 and 50 on each hook”),
rather than in response to “motion of a cargo hook becoming greater than a
predetermined limit” as recited in the claims. App. Br. 14; see also Id. at 13.
As explained by the Examiner, Roberts teaches load cells 48, 50 that
“produce a voltage that is proportional to the mount of the load suspended
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

11
from the hook [and] [t]he load includes the weight of the cargo plus forces
created by movement of the cargo . . . as the cargo is being transported.”
Roberts, col. 6, ll. 16-19; see also Ans. 17. The autojettison system is
activated based on signals received from the load cells (Roberts, col. 7, ll.
44-46) and is configured to cause the cargo to be jettisoned if “the structural
load limit on either hook is reached.” Roberts, col. 8, ll. 7-8; see also Ans.
17. In this way, Roberts teaches auto-jettison activation if weight and
movement of the cargo creates forces that affect load above a structural load
limit. Automatic jettison of the load upon meeting a “load limit condition”
in which “a preselected structural load limit of a hook is exceeded” may
“protect[] the aircraft from structural damage.” Roberts, col. 4, ll. 10-16.
Appellants have not persuasively explained how the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Roberts fail to meet the claim language of “causing a load
attached to the cargo hook to be released in response to motion of the cargo
hook becoming greater than a predetermined limit.” Claims App’x.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 23 would have been obvious
from the combination of Asseo, Shaw, and Roberts, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 6, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Asseo, Shaw, and Willebrand
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Appellants have presented no further
arguments with respect to the rejection of dependent claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ans. 10), and we sustain the rejection of claim 13 for the
same reasons discussed supra in connection with claim 1. See Manual of
Appeal 2010-012440
Application 11/565,697

12
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010
(“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the
Board.”).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, 17-19, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh