Ex Parte Giesa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2016

12936743 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/936,743 12/14/2010
530 7590 11/10/2016
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans-Gerhard Giesa
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.
AIRBUS 3.3-260 6525
EXAMINER
AKHTER, SHARMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2016 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-GERHARD GIESA, MICHAEL WEIDEL and
VALERIE RENAULDON-DUMAIN
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8, 11, 13-22, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 21 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
and formatting added):
1. System for preventing inadvertent slide deployment for
an aircraft, comprising:
at least one sensor for sensing the proximity of a person
within a predetermined distance in front of an aircraft door,
without the person having to grip or to attempting to grip a door
handle; and
at least one optical warning means operable to provide an
optical indication in a vicinity of a slide arming lever when the
at least one sensor detects the proximity of a person in front of
the aircraft door.
21. A method for preventing inadvertent slide
deployment for an aircraft, comprising:
receiving aircraft data;
determining whether the aircraft is on the ground;
sensing proximity of a person within a predetermined
distance in front of a door, without the person having to grip or
to attempting to grip a door handle; and
if a person is detected in proximity to the door, providing at
least one optical warning.
2
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 13, 14, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Farmer et al. (US
2008/0284619 Al; Nov. 20, 2008) and Heppeler (US 2007/0171053 Al;
July 26, 2007). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over various combinations of Farmer, Heppeler, and
Pashko-Paschenko (US 2006/0287829 Al; Dec. 21, 2006).2
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over various combinations of Farmer, Heppeler, and Murphy
(US 2008/0007400 Al; Jan. 10, 2008). 3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over various combinations of Farmer, Heppeler, and
Friedman et al. (US 4,929,936; May 29, 1990).
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6, 13, 14, and 25. Except
for our ultimate decision, the rejection of these claims is not discussed
further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 11 and 22. Claim 11 is
argued by virtue of its dependence from claim 1. App. Br. 16. Thus, the
rejection of claim 11 turns on our decision as to claim 1. Claim 22 is argued
with claim 21. App. Br. 14. Except for our ultimate decision, the rejection
of claims 11 and 22 is not discussed further herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 7, 8, and 15-20. These
claims are argued by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. App. Br. 16.
Thus, the rejections of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1.
Except for our ultimate decision, the rejections of these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over various combinations of Farmer, Heppeler, and
Brooks et al. (US 2003/0210139 Al; Nov. 13, 2003).
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Heppeler is nonanalogous art because it is
not from the same field of endeavor:
Heppeler is not analogous art because it relates to emergency
exits and evacuation routes in public buildings. (See id.
iTiT [0002]-[0004].)
App. Br. 6.
While the claimed inventions and the primary reference
Farmer are related to the field of aircraft doors equipped with
slides, the secondary reference Heppeler is related to monitoring
evacuation routes and escape doors in buildings. The field of
endeavor for monitoring infrequently used evacuation routes and
escape doors for unauthorized intrusion is not the same as that
for preventing inadvertent slide deployments in aircraft doors,
which doors are in fact regularly used.
App. Br. 7.
2. Further, Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Heppeler is
nonanalogous art because it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
addressed by the present application:
[W]hile Heppeler describes a monitoring unit for detecting
presence of an object in the escape door security area, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not combine the monitoring unit
of Heppeler with the Farmer aircraft door alarm system because
of completely different functions performed by the systems of
the cited art.
4
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
App. Br. 6.
[T]he claimed inventions are directed toward alerting an operator
only when necessary and still providing sufficient time for the
operator to process the warning means and reconsider the course
of action, for example of actuating the aircraft door handle while
the slide arming lever is armed.
Heppeler, on the other hand, is geared toward solving a
problem very different from that faced by the Appellants.
Heppeler relates to a system for deterring persons from actuating
an escape door of an evacuation route in a public building and/or
to ensure availability of the evacuation routes as well as ability
to open the escape doors at all times.
App. Br. 8-9.
3. Additionally, Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Farmer is silent regarding the location of the LED 34. Thus,
Farmer does not, and cannot, disclose at least one optical
warning means operable to provide an optical indication in a
vicinity of a slide arming lever as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 11.
[A Jn intermittent blinking of the LED 34 indicates that the alarm
system is armed and in a "stand by" mode and a permanently lit
LED 34 indicates that the alarm system has been activated. (See
id. i-fi-1 [0033]-[0034].) Thus, it is not the function of the LED 34
of Farmer to draw attention to particular component of the
aircraft door.
App. Br. 11.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
As further described in the specification, the optical warnings
means is activated only when an operator is within a
predetermined distance and not otherwise, to prevent an
operator from becoming so inured to the warnings that the
5
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
operator may ignore or overlook them. (See 5:20-27.) Thus,
Farmer does not disclose or suggest at least one optical warning
means as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12, emphasis added.
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[E]ven if a person of ordinary skill in the art were to modify the
Farmer system in view of Heppeler, the resulting combination
would be an intrusion sensor substituting the contactless sensor
of Farmer.
App. Br. 14.
6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
There is no commonality between the problem of collisions and
the problem of inadvertent slide deployment for an aircraft door.
Pashko-Paschenko is neither from the same field of endeavor nor
is reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the Inventors.
Pashko-Paschenko, therefore, constitutes nonanalogous art.
App. Br. 15.
7. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Examiner fails to provide any articulation of the reasons as
to why or how the modified system would "provide a more
efficient and automated system." (Id.) In fact, it is not clear from
the Final Office Action how the proposed modified system is
"more efficient and automated" relative to the Farmer system.
Moreover, the Pashko-Paschenko system is configured to be
activated when the aircraft, for example, is moving, albeit on the
ground. (See Pashko-Paschenko i-f [0030].)
App. Br. 15-16.
6
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 21 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as
our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following points.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, prior art is analogous if
either (A) "the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed" or (B) regardless of field of endeavor, the reference is
"reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). "A reference is reasonably
pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals,
logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem." Id. (quotation omitted). "If a reference disclosure
has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the
same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection." Id. (quotation omitted). Whether a prior art reference is
"analogous" is a question of fact. Id. However, "[t]he pertinence of the
reference as a source of solution to the inventor's problem must be
recognizable with the foresight of a person of ordinary skill, not with the
7
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
hindsight of the inventor's successful achievement." Sci. Plastic Prod., Inc.
v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In Innovention, the patentee argued the references "describ [ ed]
computer-based, chess-like strategy games" and were "non-analogous art
because the [asserted] patent's inventors were concerned with making a
non-virtual, three-dimensional, laser-based board game, a project that
involves mechanical engineering and optics, not computer programming."
637 F.3d at 1316, 1321. The Federal Circuit found "an electronic, laser-
based strategy game, even if not in the same field of endeavor, would
nonetheless have been reasonably pertinent to the problem facing an
inventor of a new, physical, laser-based strategy game" because both "relate
to the same goal: designing a winnable yet entertaining strategy game." Id.
at 1322.
As to contention 1, given the record before us, we are not persuaded
by Appellants' arguments. Appellants too narrowly interpret the field of
endeavor of the prior art. For example, Appellants limit Farmer to
"preventing inadvertent slide deployments in aircraft doors." App. Br. 7.
Appellants then limit Heppeler to "monitoring infrequently used evacuation
routes and escape doors for unauthorized intrusion." Id. Yet Farmer
describes their field more broadly as "[a]n alarm system for an aircraft
door." Farmer Abst. Farmer goes on to state that the door is for emergency
evacuation. Farmer i-f 3. Heppeler also describes his field more broadly:
"The present invention relates to an evacuation route monitoring system for
monitoring an evacuation route having an escape door." Heppeler Abst.
Further, Appellants' Specification at page 1, lines 20-22 shows the
8
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
invention to be in the field of aircraft evacuation doors. We find that the
field of endeavor here is the broader field of evacuation doors.
As to contention 2, as with the field of endeavor Appellants too
narrowly interpret the pertinent prior art and the particular problems they try
to address. We find the problem being addressed is the broader problem of
effective door alarms/indicators, rather than the narrow problems listed by
Appellants, e.g., "deterring persons from actuating an escape door of an
evacuation route in a public building and/or to ensure availability of the
evacuation routes as well as ability to open the escape doors at all times."
App. Br. 9. Thus, even if we were persuaded by Appellants that Farmer and
Heppeler are directed to different fields of endeavor, we would still find that
they are analogous art based on Heppeler's building door alarm system
being reasonably pertinent to the broader aircraft door alarm/indicator
problem with which the inventor is involved. Our view is reinforced by
Farmer which points to Pioch (US 3,824,576) as pertinent art.
An alarm system activated by a touch-sensitive door knob
is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,824,576. In this patent rotation of
the door knob retracts a latch bolt thus causing an electrical
connection between the knob and the bolt thereby triggering an
alarm. The system also provides a procedure whereby authorised
personnel can enter the premises and de-activate the alarm
system before the alarm is activated either through a time-delay
circuit or through a separate deactivation means outside the
building.
Farmer i-f 6. As with the system in Heppeler, Farmer-which relates to an
alarm system for aircraft doors-suggests that Pioch is relevant prior art
despite being directed to an alarm system for a building door.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we disagree. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, we do not find Farmer to be "silent regarding the
9
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
location of the LED 34." App. Br. 11. Rather, Farmer at paragraph 28
states, "FIG. 2 shows the reverse side of a door operating handle 20 similar
to that referenced [as label] 3 in FIG. 1." Emphasis added. Farmer at
paragraph 32 states, "FIG. 3 shows a circuit diagram for an alarm system
substantially similar to the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 2." Emphasis
added. Together these are sufficient to suggest to an artisan that the LED 34
in Figure 3 is on or near the door operating handle.
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument, we do not find Farmer's
permanently lit LED 34 to only "indicate[] that the alarm system has been
activated." App. Br. 11. Farmer states "When the pressure sensor 37 is
subjected to pressure, for example when the door handle is gripped, a sub-
circuit including the pressure sensor 37 and LED 34 is closed and the LED
becomes permanently lit, taking current directly from the dry cell 31
indicating the alarm has been activated." Emphasis added. We find that
Farmer describes the permanently lit LED 34 indicating that the door handle
is gripped in addition to indicating the alarm has been activated.
As to Appellants' above contention 4, we disagree. Appellants argue
that Farmer does not disclose or suggest "an operator is within a
predetermined distance." App. Br. 12. However, the Examiner did not cite
Farmer for that limitation. Rather, the Examiner relied on Heppeler to teach
a "sensor for sensing the proximity of a person within a predetermined
distance in front of a door." Final Act. 3.
We conclude that Appellants' argument does not address the actual
reasoning of the Examiner's rejections. Instead Appellants attack the
Farmer reference singly for lacking teachings that the Examiner relied on a
combination of references to show. It is well established that one cannot
10
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The effect of Appellants' argument is to raise and then knock down a
straw man rejection of claim 1 that was never made by the Examiner in that
the Examiner did not rely solely on Farmer as argued. In other words,
Appellants argue findings the Examiner never made. This form of argument
is inherently unpersuasive to show Examiner error. Our reviewing court
requires that references must be read, not in isolation, but for what they
fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
As to Appellants' above contention 5, we disagree. Appellants
speculate that the combination of Farmer and Heppeler render obvious "an
intrusion sensor substituting the contactless sensor of Farmer." App. Br. 14.
Even if we were to agree that the cited combination also renders obvious an
invention other than the invention of Appellants' claim 1, this is simply not a
relevant argument as to whether the Examiner has provided a proper final
conclusion that the combination of references renders obvious the claimed
invention. A combination of two references are not precluded from
rendering obvious any number of distinct inventions.
As to Appellants' above contention 6, we disagree. As discussed
above, Appellants again misstate the pertinent problem addressed by claim
21 for which the Examiner turns to Pashko-Paschenko. As Appellants
acknowledge, "independent claim 21 recites the steps of receiving aircraft
data and determining whether the aircraft is on the ground." App. Br. 14.
We deem this to explicitly state the problem being addressed. Appellants'
11
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
attempt to define the problem otherwise is misguided as we do not find the
"receiving" and "determining" steps recited in claim 21 to be connected to
the remaining method steps recited in the claim as currently written. The
Examiner relied on paragraphs 30-33 of Pashko-Paschenko as teaching
these limitations. Final Act. 10. Despite Appellants' argument as to the
pertinent art, we do not find where Appellants dispute these teachings of
Pashko-Paschenko. Thus, Pashko-Paschenko is reasonably pertinent to the
problem of determining whether the aircraft is on the ground based on
aircraft data.
As to Appellants' above contention 7, we disagree. We deem
Appellants to have admitted that it is known in the art for the cabin crew to
check whether the aircraft is on the ground: "Prior to departure of a large
passenger aircraft all aircraft doors are placed into a so-called 'armed mode'
by the cabin crew." Appellants' Spec. 1:20-21. We agree with the
Examiner that the system of Farmer as modified by Pashko-Paschenko
provides a more efficient and automated system.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 11, 13-22,
and 25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-8, 11, 13-22, and 25 are not patentable.
12
Appeal2015-005902
Application 12/936,743
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 11, 13-22, and 25 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13