Ex Parte Garnett et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 201913565155 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/565, 155 61654 7590 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 08/02/2012 05/24/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Harold E. Garnett 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. l 4229 l l.203US 1 [70896US01] 7255 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2019 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): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAROLD E. GARNETT, MATTHEW M. WEBB, and JASON L. SKOGLUND 1 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, JAMES P. CAL VE, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1---6, 8, and 10-21 in the present application. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Collectively referred to as "Appellant" herein. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rosemount Aerospace, Inc. Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 3. Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 The claimed invention is directed to a system and method for managing icing conditions on a rotary aircraft. Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and read as follows: 1. A method for managing 1cmg conditions on a rotary aircraft via one or more ice protection controllers, the method compnsmg: receiving an icing condition signal from an icing rate sensor at an ice protection controller; determining, in response to the icing condition signal, a de-icing signal and an anti-icing signal based at least in part on a liquid water content (L WC) at the ice protection controller; transmitting, via a controller area network (CAN) bus routed through a power converter cutout unit and disposed in at least part of a main rotor slip ring assembly, the de-icing signal to an upper distributor to cause the upper distributor to transmit direct current (DC) power to one or more heating elements for a respective rotor blade; and transmitting, via an alternating current (AC) power tail rotor heater power line disposed at least in part in a tail rotor slip ring assembly, the anti-icing signal to one or more tail heating elements of a respective tail rotor blade, wherein the AC power is routed directly to AC powered heating elements without traversing an intervening tail rotor distributor. 10. A rotor ice protection system for a rotary aircraft having one or more heating elements associated with a respective rotor blade, the system comprising: at least one ice protection controller that receives an icing condition signal and, in response, generates a de-icing signal; one or more icing rate sensors in communication with the ice protection controller, each icing rate sensor detects an icing condition and, in response to the detected icing condition, generates the icing condition signal, wherein each icing rate 2 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 sensor transmits the 1cmg condition signal to respective ice protection controllers; and an upper distributor in communication with the ice protection controller and configured to receive the de-icing signal from the ice protection controller and in response, transmits power to the one or more heating element to de-ice the respective rotor blade, wherein the upper distributor is in communication with a first ice protection controller through a first digital communication bus disposed in part in a slip ring assembly, wherein the upper distributor is in communication with a second ice protection controller through a second digital communication bus disposed in part in the slip ring assembly, wherein the upper distributor is electrically connected to a first power source through a first power line disposed in part in the slip ring assembly, and wherein the upper distributor is electrically connected to a second power source through a second power line disposed in part in the slip ring assembly. App. Br. 32, 34 (Claims App'x). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claims 1-6, 8, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner also rejects the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-AIA) as unpatentable as follows: 3. Claim 10 as obvious over Froman (US 2008/0152494 Al, pub. June 26, 2008) in view of Houlihan (US 2006/0226292 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 3 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 2006), and either Flemming (US 2008/0167764 Al, pub. July 10, 2008) or Bourjac (US 7,523,889 B2, iss. Apr. 28, 2009). 4. Claims 11 and 12 as obvious over Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac, and in view of Severson (US 2002/0158768 Al, pub. Oct. 31, 2002) ("Severson '768"). 5. Claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac, and in view of Severson (US 6,560,551 B 1, iss. May 6, 2003) ("Severson '551 "). 6. Claim 14 as obvious over Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac, and in view of Greene (US 2007 /0176049 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007). 7. Claim 20 as obvious over Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac. 8. Claim 21 as obvious over Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac. ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that the Appellant could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365- 66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010 (precedential)). 4 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 Rejection 1 Claims 1-6, 8, 16-19, and 21 stand rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement for various reasons, which we address below. Claim 1 CAN Bus The Examiner finds that the underlined portion of the limitation "a controller area network (CAN) bus routed through a power converter cutout unit and disposed at least in part of a main rotor slip ring" is not supported by the original disclosure because "[ t ]here is only support for the CAN bus being disposed in part in the main rotor slip ring 107." Final Act. 5. The Examiner explains that "the specification as originally filed does not support the power convector cut out unit 210 being disposed at least in part in the main rotor slip ring 107," and that Figure 4 illustrates that "the power convector cut out unit 210 is ... not disposed at least in part in the main rotor slip ring 107." Ans. 4--5. The Appellant disagrees and argues that this limitation is disclosed on page 7, lines 2-3 of the Specification, and shown in Figure 4. App. Br. 15 (reproducing a portion of Figure 4 with added annotation "CAN bus routed at least in part in a slip ring assembly"). The cited portion of the Specification states "[ e Jach power converter unit 210 further communicates, via a digital communication bus that passes through slip ring 107, with an upper distributor 215." Spec. p. 7, 11. 2-3. We do not sustain this rejection based on this limitation. The claim language at issue does not require the power converter cutout unit to be disposed at least in part in a main rotor slip ring. Instead, the claim 5 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 language, by the use of the conjunction "and," recites that the CAN bus is disposed at least in part of the slip ring, and is also routed through the power converter cutout unit. The Specification provides adequate support for the recited limitation (Spec. p. 7, 11. 2-3; Fig. 4), and need not provide support for a power converter cutout unit being at least in part in the slip ring, which is not claimed. AC Power Line The Examiner finds that the underlined portion of the limitation "an alternating current (AC) power tail rotor heater power line disposed at least in part in a tail rotor slip ring assembly" is not supported by the original disclosure because "[t]here is only support for the alternating current (AC) power tail rotor heater power line being disposed in part in the tail rotor slip ring assembly 230 (figure 4)." Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner explains that the scope of claim language "includes the AC tail rotor heater power line ... disposed fully in the tail rotor slip ring assembly 230," but Fig. 4 and the Specification only discloses the AC tail rotor heater power line "disposed in part in the tail rotor slip ring assembly 230 and not fully in the tail rotor slip ring assembly 230." Ans. 5---6. The Appellant argues that this limitation is disclosed on page 15, lines 1-3 of the Specification, and shown in Figure 4. App. Br. 15-16 (reproducing a portion of Figure 4 with added annotation "AC power tail rotor heater power line disposed at least in part in a tail rotor slip ring assembly"). The cited portion of the Specification states that "the ice protection controller receives 3-phase AC power from an AC power generator and transmits an anti-icing signal or a heating power signal to the 6 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 tail heating elements 235 via a tail rotor lightning box 225 and tail slip ring 230." Spec. pp. 14, 1. 21-15, 1. 3. Although we understand the basis of the Examiner's rejection, we do not agree with it. Importantly, the claim recites what the Specification discloses, i.e., that the AC tail rotor heater power line is disposed at least in part in a tail rotor slip ring assembly. Spec. p. 15, 11. 1-3; Fig. 4. In addition, although the Examiner interprets the limitation at issue as encompassing an implementation in which the AC tail rotor heater power line is disposed entirely in a tail rotor slip ring assembly, we view this interpretation to be unreasonably broad, taking the limitation out of context. The entire limitation requires the step of transmitting via the AC power tail rotor heater power line, "the anti-icing signal to one or more tail heating elements of a respective tail rotor blade." It is not apparent, nor does the Examiner explain, how such transmission of the anti-icing signal to the tail heating elements that are not resident within the tail rotor slip ring assembly can be attained if the AC power tail rotor heater power line was fully within the slip ring assembly. Moreover, as the Examiner correctly notes, such an embodiment is not disclosed in the Specification. Based on the foregoing, we do not construe the claim as encompassing an AC power tail rotor heater power line disposed entirely within a tail rotor slip ring assembly. Thus, we find the Examiner's rejection based on this limitation to be premised on an impermissibly broad interpretation of the claim, and do not sustain the same. Without Traversing Intervening Tail Rotor Distributor The Examiner also finds that the limitation "wherein the AC power is routed directly to AC powered heating elements without traversing an 7 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 intervening tail rotor distributor" to be a negative limitation, which is not supported in the original disclosure. Final Act. 6. The Examiner points out that negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure, but that "the specification does not have a basis for the negative limitation or exclusionary proviso of the underlined limitation." Ans. 6-7. The Appellant argues that this limitation is disclosed on page 19, lines 1-3 of the Specification, and shown in Figure 4. App. Br. 16-17 (showing a portion of Figure 4 with added annotation "No tail rotor distributor."). The cited portion of the Specification states "[ f]urther, the techniques and systems provide anti-icing capability without a need for additional line replaceable units (LRU s) to be deployed near the tail rotor since conditions determined for de-icing the main rotor serve as a proxy." Spec. p. 19, 11. 1- 3. We agree with the Examiner. Specifically, unlike the above-discussed limitation regarding AC power tail rotor heater power line "disposed at least in part in a tail rotor slip ring assembly" that was based on an unreasonably broad interpretation, this limitation positively recites an exclusion in that it prohibits the AC power from being routed to traverse an intervening tail rotor distributor. As the Examiner determined, the recited exclusion is a negative claim limitation, and negative claim limitations are adequately supported when explicitly described by the Specification or when a reason to exclude the relevant limitations is provided. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner is correct (Ans. 7) that the portion of the Specification cited and relied upon by the Appellant does not pertain to a tail rotor distributor, and, instead, pertains to a Line Replaceable Unit ("LRU"). In 8 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 that regard, it is unclear why the Appellant equates an LRU with tail rotor distributor, which functions to distribute power to heating elements of the tail rotor blades. Although Figure 4 shows a distributor for the main rotor, but no corresponding distributor for the tail rotor, such illustration, without more, does not support the negative claim limitation prohibiting the AC power from being routed to traverse an intervening tail rotor distributor. Therefore, on this basis, we affirm the written description rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6, 8, and 16-19 that ultimately depend from claim 1. Claim 21 Tail Rotor Heater Power Line The Examiner rejects claim 21 as lacking written descriptive support, finding that the scope of the claim language encompasses the tail rotor heater power line being disposed fully in the main rotor slip ring assembly. Final Act. 6; App. Br. 17-18; Ans. 8. Accordingly, this rejection of claim 21 raises the same issue already addressed above with respect to claim 1 regarding the AC power line. Thus, because this rejection is premised on an unreasonably broad claim interpretation, we do not sustain this rejection. CAN Bus The Examiner finds that the underlined portion of limitation "a controller area network (CAN) bus disposed at least partially in a main rotor slip ring assembly and an intermediate power converter cutout unit" is not supported by the original disclosure because "[t]here is only support for the CAN bus being disposed in part in the main rotor slip ring 107." Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner explains that neither the Specification nor Figure 4 9 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 discloses the intermediate power converter cutout unit being disposed at least partially in the main rotor slip ring assembly. Ans. 9. The Appellant disagrees and argues that this limitation is disclosed on page 12, lines 21-23, and shown in Figure 4. App. Br. 19 (showing a portion of Figure 4 with added annotation "CAN bus disposed at least partially in an intermediate power converter cutout unit"). The issue raised regarding this rejection is similar to that of claim 1 discussed above relative to the CAN bus, and the rejection is improper for similar reasons. In particular, the claim limitation at issue does not require the power converter cutout unit to be disposed at least in part in a main rotor slip ring. Instead, the claim language, by the use of the conjunction "and," recites that the CAN bus is disposed at least in part of the slip ring and the power converter cutout unit. Because Figure 4 provides adequate support for the recited limitation, we do not sustain this rejection as to this limitation. DC Power Line The Examiner finds that the underlined portion of limitation "a direct current (DC) power line disposed at least partially in the main rotor slip ring assembly" is not supported by the original disclosure because "[ t ]here is only support for the direct current power line disposed partially in main rotor slip ring assembly 107 (figure 4)." Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner explains that the scope of the limitation "includes the direct current (DC) power line being disposed fully in the main rotor slip ring assembly," but Figure 4 does not show the DC power line "disposed fully in the main rotor slip ring assembly 107." Ans. 10. The Appellant disagrees and argues that this limitation is disclosed on 10 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 page 12, lines 1-2, and shown in Figure 4. App. Br. 20 (showing a portion of Figure 4 with added annotation "DC power line disposed at least partially in a main rotor slip ring assembly."). The issue raised in this rejection is substantially the same as that of claim 1 discussed above relative to the AC power line, and improper for similar reasons. In particular, this rejection is premised on an unreasonably broad interpretation. Accordingly, we also do not sustain this written description rejection of claim 21 based on this limitation. In summary, as to Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner's written description rejection of claims 1---6, 8, and 16-19, but reverse the rejection as to claim 21. Rejection 2 Claims 1-6, 8, 16-19, and 21 stand rejected as being indefinite for various reasons, which we address below. Claim 1 Signal Based at Least in Part on L WC The Examiner finds that the limitation "determining, in response to the icing condition signal, a de-icing signal and an anti-icing signal based at least in part on a liquid water content (L WC) at the ice protection controller" renders claim 1 indefinite. Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that "'based at least in part' is unclear as to if this refers to the de-icing signal, the anti- icing signal, or both the de-icing signal and the anti-icing signal." Final Act. 7; Ans. 12. The Appellant argues that this limitation does not render the claim indefinite because "[t]he content of the application disclosure informs the 11 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 reader" that "both de-ice process and anti-ice process use LWC to generate the de-icing signal and the anti-icing schedule." App. Br. 22, citing Spec. p. 12, 11. 16-23; p. 14, 11. 9-13. The Examiner responds that "limitations from the specification are not read into the claims." Ans. 12. We agree with the Appellant. The sentence structure of the limitation at issue makes sufficiently clear that both the de-icing signal and the anti- icing signal are determined based at least in part on a liquid water content. This is supported by the portions of the Specification relied upon by the Appellant. In contrast, we are not apprised to where the Specification discloses determining either the de-icing signal or the anti-icing signal not based at least in part on a liquid water content. Therefore, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection based on this limitation. CAN Bus The Examiner finds that the limitation "transmitting, via a controller area network ( CAN) bus routed through a power converter cutout unit and disposed in at least part of a main rotor slip ring assembly, the de-icing signal to an upper distributor" also renders claim 1 indefinite. Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that the recitation "'and disposed at least in part' is unclear as to if this refers to CAN bus, the power converter cutout unit, or both the CAN bus and the power converter cutout unit." Final Act. 7; Ans. 13. The Appellant argues that this limitation is not indefinite because "[ t ]he content of the application disclosure informs the reader of the arrange [sic, arrangement] of the CAN bus at least in Fig. 4, where each CAN bus is 12 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 shown extending from an MIPC, through a power converter cutout unit (PCCU), and into a slip ring assembly." App. Br. 22. The Examiner responds that "limitations from the specification are not read into the claims." Ans. 13. We agree with the Appellant. The sentence structure of the limitation at issue and use of the conjunction "and" makes sufficiently clear that it is the CAN bus that is disposed in at least part of a main rotor slip ring assembly in addition to the CAN bus being routed through the PCCU. Therefore, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 based on this limitation, as well as the rejection of claims 2-6, 8, and 16-19 that ultimately depend from claim 1. Claim 21 Intermediate Power Converter Cutout Unit The Examiner finds that the limitation "a controller area network (CAN) bus disposed at least partially in a main rotor slip ring assembly and an intermediate power converter cutout unit" renders claim 21 indefinite. Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that "'and an intermediate power converter cutout unit' is unclear as to if this is meant to claim that the CAN bus is disposed in the main rotor slip ring assembly and the intermediate power converter cutout unit." Final Act. 7; Ans. 15. The Appellant argues that this limitation does not render the claim indefinite because "the content of the application disclosure informs the reader of the arrange [sic, arrangement] of the CAN bus at least in Fig. 4, where each CAN bus is shown extending from an MIPC, through a power converter cutout unit (PCCU), and into a slip ring assembly." App. Br. 23. 13 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 The Examiner responds that "limitations from the specification are not read into the claims." Ans. 15. The sentence structure of the limitation at issue and use of the conjunction "and" makes sufficiently clear that the CAN bus is recited as being disposed in at least partially in a main rotor slip ring assembly in addition to being at least partially in an intermediate power converter cutout unit. Therefore, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claim 21 based on this limitation. Power to the Main Rotor Heating Element The Examiner finds that the limitation "a main rotor heating element in communication with the power converter cutout unit ... the power converter cutout unit providing DC power to the main rotor heating element according the de-icing signal" renders claim 21 indefinite because it is "incomplete and ambiguous." Final Act. 7; Ans. 16. The Appellant concedes that claim 21 is incomplete in asserting that this limitation is missing the word "to." App. Br. 23. The Appellant, nonetheless, argues that claim 21 is "sufficiently clear and unambiguous when analyzed" in light of the Specification, which discloses that "the ice protection controller transmits the de-icing signal to an upper distributor on page 3, at lines 5-8." App. Br. 23-24 (emphasis omitted). However, the portion of the Specification cited and relied upon by the Appellant pertains to the tail rotor, whereas the limitation at issue pertains to the main rotor. Thus, the Appellant's argument is unpersuasive, and we affirm the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection as to claim 21. In summary, as to Rejection 2, we reverse the Examiner's 14 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 indefiniteness rejection of claims 1---6, 8, and 16-19, but affirm the rejection as to claim 21. Rejection 3 The Examiner rejects claim 10 as obvious over the combination of Froman, Houlihan, and either Flemming or Bourjac. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Froman discloses a rotor ice protection system for a rotary aircraft as substantially claimed, but "does not disclose that the sensor is an icing rate sensor, and does not disclose that the communication buses are CAN/digital communication buses." Final Act. 8-9; see also Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that Houlihan discloses icing rate sensors 50a, 50b and concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the icing rate sensors of Houlihan in Froman "for the purpose of allowing for blade deicing responsive to liquid water content." Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner further finds that Flemming and Bourjac disclose ice protection systems having a CAN/ digital communication data bus, and concludes that it would have been obvious to use a CAN/ digital communication data bus "for the respective purposes of providing programmability and storing of data in the computer system via the digital data bus, and allowing for ease of communication between the CPU and the deicing system." Final Act. 10-11. The Appellant argues that the rationales set forth for modifying Froman as provided by the Examiner are improper for various reasons. We are persuaded by the Appellant's arguments that the Examiner's rejection, as presently articulated, is inadequate. 15 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 According to the Appellant, although the rejection relies on Houlihan for icing rate sensors, no motivation exists for modifying Froman in the manner suggested in the rejection because Froman already allows for blade de-icing responsive to liquid water content, as described by Froman in paragraph [0025]. In particular, Froman discloses the [sic, that] each processor 29, 31 is operatively connected to an ice detector 33 through a detector controller 35, which cooperate to provide processors 29, 31 detection of icing conditions and calculation of liquid water contact [sic, content] of the ambient air during flight. App. Br. 26. We are persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The Examiner responds that "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results was held to be an obvious extension of the prior art teachings." Ans. 18. The Examiner further responds that "the fact that the base reference to Froman already allows for blade deicing responsive to liquid water content, would not negate the obviousness of replacing the icing sensors 33 in Froman with sensors that are icing rate sensors, as taught by Houlihan" (Ans. 21). However, "[t]o facilitate review, this [obviousness] analysis should be made explicit." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness")). The articulated reasoning provided by the Examiner for modifying Froman is inadequate for the reason noted by the Appellant, i.e., Froman already discloses ice detector 33 for "detection of icing conditions and calculation of liquid water content of the ambient air during flight." 16 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 Froman ,r 25. The Appellant further argues that even if the ice management system of Froman was modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the resultant combination would still lack the recited "upper distributor [] in communication with a first ice protection controller through a first digital communication bus disposed in part in a slip ring assembly, and [] in communication with a second ice protection controller through a second digital communication bus disposed in part in the slip ring assembly." App. Br. 27. In that regard, the Appellant argues that "[a]t best, Froman discloses IGBT toggled between on and off states via an optical coupler. Toggling an IGBT between on and off states does not disclose a digital communication bus." App. Br. 28. The Appellant further argues that the "Examine[r] has not provided any reference [to] where a slip ring assembly like that recited in Claim 10 has both a first digital communication bus and a second digital communication bus." App. Br. 28. The Examiner responds that Froman discloses an upper distributor 39 is in communication with a first ice protection controller 29 through a first communication bus (near 95/101) disposed in part in a slip ring assembly 99, and is in communication with a second ice protection controller 31 through a second communication bus (near 97 /121) disposed in part in the slip ring assembly. Ans. 19--20. However, the buses of Froman referred to by the Examiner, AC Bus 1 and AC Bus 2, are not communication buses as recited by the claims, but, rather, are electrical buses that provide electrical power to the various sets of heating elements 105, 107, 109, 111, and 113. Froman ,r 36. To be clear, Froman discloses I GB Ts 115, and switching of the I GB Ts via an optical 17 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 coupler, which would require at least one communication bus. Froman ,r 3 8; Fig. 7. However, such a communication bus for operating optical switches is not necessarily a digital communication bus. Although the Examiner has relied on Flemming or Bourjac for disclosure of a digital communication data bus (Final Act. 10-11), we find persuasive the Appellant's argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not "modify Houlihan [ sic, Froman] to include a digital communication bus to a location where there is no digital device to which to communicate once modified .... [T]here is no digital device located in the upper distributor disclosed by Froman." Reply Br. 5. The Examiner's rejection, as articulated, does not provide sufficient support for providing digital communication buses instead of the buses that are disclosed in Froman. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10. The Appellant's further arguments that the Examiner's articulated reason for modifying Froman in view of Flemming and Bourjac is improper because Froman already discloses computer-based processors (App. Br. 27), and the Examiner's responses thereto (Ans. 22) are moot. Rejections 4--6 These rejections encompass claims 11-15, which ultimately depend from independent claim 10. The Appellant notes that the Examiner's application of the additional references Serverson '768 (Rejection 4), Serverson '551 (Rejection 5), and Greene (Rejection 6), does not remedy the deficiency of the rejection of independent claim 10, and relies on the same arguments submitted relative to claim 1 discussed above relative to 18 Appeal 2018-007 649 Application 13/565,155 Rejection 3 in support ofpatentability of claims 11-15. App. Br. 28-30. We accordingly reverse these rejections of dependent claims 11-15. Rejections 7 and 8 These rejections of claims 20 and 21 substantially mirror the rejection of claim 10 in Rejection 3. Final Act. 14--17. The Appellant relies on the same arguments submitted relative to claim 10 for patentability of independent claims 20 and 21. App. Br. 28. We reverse these rejections for reasons similar to those discussed above relative to claim 10 in Rejection 3. CONCLUSION 1. Rejection 1 of claims 1---6, 8, 16-19, and 21 is: a. Affirmed as to claims 1---6, 8, and 16-19; and b. Reversed as to claim 21. 2. Rejection 2 of claims 1---6, 8, 16-19, and 21 is: a. Reversed as to claims 1---6, 8, and 16-19; and b. Affirmed as to claim 21. 3. Rejection 3 of claim 10 is Reversed. 4. Rejections 4--6 of dependent claims 11-15 are Reversed. 5. Rejections 7 and 8 of claims 20 and 21 are Reversed. 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-IN-PART 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation