Ex Parte Goossen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2016

12576583 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/576,583
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
10/09/2009
08/19/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emray Goossen
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.
H0023053-5548 2416
EXAMINER
BADAWI, MEDHAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMRAY GOOSSEN and KATHERINE GOOSSEN
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
Technology Center 3600
Before: DENISE M. POTHIER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 8, 9, 21, and 22. Claims 10-20 were cancelled and claims 23-30 were
withdrawn from consideration during prosecution. The Examiner has
indicated the allowability of claims 5-7. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed "to the field ofUA Vs 1 capable of
autonomously making partial deliveries of payloads." Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UA V) comprising:
one or more ducted fans;
a cargo pod comprising an outer aerodynamic shell and
one or more drive systems for modifying a relative position of
one or more cargo provisions contained within the cargo pod;
a structural interconnect connecting the one or more fans
to the cargo pod; and
a computer configured to, after delivery of a partial portion
of cargo provisions contained within the cargo pod, control the
one or more drive systems to vary a position of at least a portion
of remaining cargo provisions to maintain a substantially same
center of gravity of the U AV after the delivery relative to a center
of gravity of the UA V prior to the delivery.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nolan
McWhirk
Bostan
Kutzmann
US 7,753,314 B2
US 2009/0152391 Al
US 2006/0231675 Al
US 2010/0025523 Al
1 UAVs stand for Unmanned Arial Vehicles.
2
July 13, 2010
June 18, 2009
Oct. 19, 2006
Feb.4,2010
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
REJECTIONS
Claim 1-3, 21, and 222 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kutzmann and Nolan. Final Act. 4.
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kutzmann, Nolan, and McWhirck. Final Act. 6.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kutzmann, Nolan, and Bostan. Final Act. 8.
OPINION
Obviousness over Kutzmann and Nolan
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Each of the pending
rejections relies in whole or in part upon the combination of Kutzmann and
Nolan. The Examiner utilizes Kutzmann for the UA V aspects of claim 1
combined with the teachings of Nolan regarding computer control for
varying a position of at least one cargo provision to maintain substantially
the same center of gravity of the UA V after the delivery. Final Act. 4.
While Nolan does teach the redistribution of liquid cargo across a
plurality of tanks and does so via computer flow control, this is an entirely
different system from that disclosed in Kutzmann. Kutzmann teaches a
UA V having a rotatable cargo hold similar to a pistol cylinder for holding
and deploying a cargo tube having a specific type of shape and size in the
form of either fuel supply containers 48 or rockets 50. Kutzmann i-f 29.
2 The Final Action refers to claim 21 twice. See Final Act. 6. The second
reference, however, discusses the limitations of claim 22. Id. Thus, we
presume the Final Action's reference to claim 21 (second occurrence)
intends to refer to claim 22 and treat the error as harmless.
3
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
These discrete cargo pieces are loaded into payload retainers 42 that rotate
either to move the cargo for deployment or into a position to refuel the
UA V. Kutzmann i-f 30. The only flow taught in Kutzmann is to transfer fuel
from a fuel supply container 48 to the UA V's fuel tank to extend the range
of the UA V and reduce the need for refueling. Kutzmann i-f 32. There is no
interconnected flow between the fuel containers, nor is there any discussion
of a partial emptying of the fuel container 48.
Nolan's flow system is used to control flow of liquid between a
plurality of fixed containers to better distribute liquid cargo within a cargo
plane, for example a plane used for aerial dispersion of materials, such as to
fight fires. Nolan Abstract. Nolan does teach moving cargo to maintain a
stable center of gravity, but it does so by moving the fluid within fixed cargo
containers rather than moving the cargo containers themselves. Nolan col.
6, 1. 66-col. 7, 1. 19. While we always caution against an argument of bodily
incorporation of one reference's teachings into another to overcome a
rejection, here, the issue is not bodily incorporation, but a change of the
principle of operation ofKutzmann (or Nolan) to facilitate incorporating the
teachings of Nolan.
Kutzmann is completely silent regarding the desirability of moving
cargo to maintain a stable center of gravity, and, in fact, it does not appear
that the design of Kutzmann would even result in issues relating to center of
gravity related to deployment of cargo. Kutzmann utilizes long, narrow
cargo cylinders that are unlikely to greatly affect the center of gravity of the
UA Vas the deployment cylinder is rotated and/or cargo is deployed.
Further, when deploying, for example a missile, the missile is centered in the
4
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
deployment bay. Releasing the missile from the UA V would likely have a
negligible, if not zero, effect on the UA V's center of gravity.
Even presuming Kutzmann's UA V's center gravity is impacted as
cargo is deployed, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would
have recognized combining Nolan's teaching with Kutzmann. While Nolan
discusses a way to shift cargo to counteract undesirable shifts in aircraft
center of gravity, it does so with respect to liquid cargo being transferred
among a plurality of fluidly interconnected and fixed cargo containers.
Kutzmann, however, has no interconnection between cargo containers 48
and 50 and therefore no fluid flow possible between containers. Thus, a
control system for redistributing fluid as taught by Nolan used within
Kutzmann would accomplish nothing. Also, as noted above, it is not even
clear that any redistribution of cargo is necessary to maintain a stable center
of gravity in Kutzmann. In essence, given the record, one skilled in the art
would not have recognized to combine Nolan's teachings with Kutzmann
absent impermissible hindsight.
Furthermore, we see no evidence that Nolan actually redistributes its
cargo after deployment of some of the cargo to "maintain a substantially
same center of gravity of the UA V after the delivery relative to a center of
gravity of the UAV prior to the delivery" as required by claim 1. The
teaching upon which the Examiner relies simply states that the control
system "maintain[ s] a stable host aircraft center of gravity by preventing
shifts in the dispersant material." Nolan, col. 13, 11. 46-48. This may simply
refer to pressurization of the tanks to prevent sloshing of the material or it
may refer to consolidating material so that tanks are as close to full or empty
as possible, also to prevent sloshing. Nolan also only refers to maintaining a
5
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
"stable" center of gravity, which could refer to a range of acceptable centers
of gravity that do not sufficiently alter operation while not necessarily being
the "same" as prior to cargo offload. See id. Whatever Nolan teaches, there
is no teaching of "maintain[ing] a substantially same center of gravity of the
UA V after the delivery relative to a center of gravity of the UA V prior to the
delivery" as claimed in claim 1, which would require measuring a target
center of gravity and then repositioning cargo to return to that "same" or
"substantially same" center of gravity.
Also Kutzmann teaches only the movement of the entire cargo
retaining mechanism 42 to shift cargo either for deployment or to facilitate
refueling of the UA V. Whatever control may be found in Nolan, it is
inapplicable to the teachings of Kutzmann for the purpose of redistributing
cargo. Nolan deploys fluid from its cargo containers and then shifts the
liquid cargo as desired. Kutzmann deploys the entire cargo container and
then rotates its cargo retainer to move the next cargo to a deployment
position or to a fuel transfer position without consideration of the UA V's
center of gravity. To alter Kutzmann to be able to have interconnected cargo
containers would alter the principle of operation of Kutzmann and thus,
destroy its purpose of having a rotatable cargo system for deployment of
discrete and unconnected cargo containers. Also, altering Nolan's control
system to apply it to redistribution of discrete containers within a UA V
rather than redistributing liquid within a plurality of containers would alter
Nolan beyond its teachings. The mere presence of a configurable computer
control system does not allow for entirely reprogramming how the system
would work to operate in an entirely different environment. See Ans. 8.
6
Appeal2013-000711
Application 12/576,583
Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Nolan
and Kutzmann are combinable.
We conclude that the Examiner has erred both because Nolan is
deficient in teaching the maintenance of a "substantially same center of
gravity" as claimed and also because the references are not properly
combinable as proposed. Because all of the rejections at issue in this appeal
rely upon the deficient/improper combination of Kutzmann and Nolan, we
reverse all of the Examiner's pending rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 9, 21, and 22 is 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).
REVERSED
7