Ex Parte Hanlon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12704971 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/704,971 02/12/2010 Casey Hanlon H0025146-1160/1147-081US1 7337
89941 7590 03/02/2017
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
AUNG, SAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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 @ honey well, com
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CASEY HANLON, KELLAN GECK,
and JAMES NEIL QUITMEYER
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Casey Hanlon et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—13, 15, 16, 18, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are pending. Independent claim 1
illustrates the claimed invention, and is reproduced below.
1. An aircraft electric brake actuator assembly,
comprising:
an actuator housing configured to be mounted on an
aircraft landing gear;
a motor housing coupled to the actuator housing and
removable therefrom, the motor housing being accessible when
the actuator housing is mounted on the aircraft landing gear;
an actuator disposed within the actuator housing, the
actuator being coupled to receive a drive torque and configured,
upon receipt of the drive torque, to translate to a position;
an electric motor disposed within the motor housing and
coupled to the actuator, the electric motor being configured to
be selectively energized and configured, upon being energized,
to rotate and thereby supply the drive torque to the actuator; and
an actuator brake disposed within the motor housing and
removably coupled to the motor, the actuator brake being
configured to selectively engage and disengage the motor to
thereby at least inhibit motor rotation and allow motor rotation,
respectively, wherein the motor housing envelopes at least a
portion of the electric motor and the actuator brake.
REJECTIONS1
Claims 1—3, 7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Himes (US 2008/0135349 Al; pub. June 12, 2008) and
F.E. Reuland (US 2,725,123; iss. Nov. 29, 1955 (hereinafter “Reuland”)).
Final Act. 3.
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 14, 17, and 19. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Claims 4—6, 8—13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Himes, Reuland, and Baasch (US 2008/0110435 Al;
pub. May 15, 2008). Final Act. 7.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Haydon (US 2006/0102436 Al; pub. May 18, 2006) and Reuland. Final
Act. 12.
OPINION
Rejection I
Group I (Claims 1—3 and 7)
Appellants argue claims 1—3 and 7 as a group. Appeal Br. 7, 12. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2,
3, and 7 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Himes discloses, inter alia, an aircraft brake
actuator assembly comprising an actuator, an actuator housing 34, and a
motor 80 with a housing removably coupled to the actuator housing and
accessible when the actuator housing is mounted on the aircraft. Final Act.
3. The Examiner finds that Himes does not explicitly disclose a brake
within the motor housing and removably coupled to the motor, but finds this
explicit disclosure in Reuland. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner,
Reuland discloses a brake 12 within a motor housing 1, 9 that selectively
engages the motor B to inhibit motor rotation. Id. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to add a brake in the motor housing of
Himes “to provide lesser number of part and more compact and reliable in
operation of brake and also self-adjusting to compensate for wear.” Id.
3
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Findings
Appellants argue that Reuland discloses separate housings 1 and 9 for
the motor B and brake 12, respectively, and that two separate housings are
not the same as a single housing as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants
support this contention by explaining that Reuland’s brake housing 9 is
closed at both ends, and its motor housing 1 abuts a closed end (i.e., annular
backing plate 38) of the brake housing 9 such that the motor housing 1 could
not and does not envelope at least a portion of the magnetic brake
mechanism. Id. Appellants, thus, contend that Reuland’s annular backing
plate 38, which closes an inner end of the brake housing 9, is a part of the
brake housing 9 that defines the brake housing 9 as closed and separate from
the motor housing. Id.
According to Reuland, the annular backing plate 38 includes a
laminated core 37 of the electro-magnet structure 17 of the brake 12 welded
thereon, and is bolted to the brake housing 9 via bolts 10, and to the motor
housing 1 via bolts 39. Reuland 3:3—5, 4:1—7.
We are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would not equate
Reuland’s separate housings 1 and 9 with the claimed motor housing. The
claim does not recite the housing being monolithic such that the Examiner’s
finding is in error. Further, Appellants have not persuaded us that one
skilled in the art, upon reviewing the disclosure of Reuland, would not have
added the motor to Himes via inclusion of the motor into Rimes’ motor
housing 80. The fact that Reuland’s backing plate 38 rests between its
housings 1 and 9 does not teach away from the housing 1, 9 being part of a
single enclosure, nor would it lead one skilled in the art not to place
Reuland’s brake into Himes motor housing.
4
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Reasoning
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s reason for combining
Himes and Reuland lacks a rational basis. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants
contend that the Examiner failed to establish that modifying Himes to
include Reuland’s brake would yield less parts, which then fails to support
the Examiner’s assertion that modifying Himes to include Reuland’s brake
would provide a “lesser number of part and more compact and reliable in
operation of [the] brake.” Id. at 11.
The Examiner’s reasoning, however, also contends that the proposed
combination of Himes and Reuland would provide “self-adjust[ment] to
compensate for wear.” Final Act. 4. Appellants fail to explain why this
reasoning lacks a rational basis, and we, therefore, are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s conclusion contains error.
Group II (Claim 15)
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites “the actuator brake [being]
removably coupled to the motor via [a] mounting bolt.” The Examiner finds
this disclosure in Himes.
Appellants argue that, because the Examiner did not find that Himes
includes the claimed brake, the finding that Himes discloses a brake coupled
to the motor is necessarily in error. Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner responds by “inherently” concluding “that brake
mechanism is enclosed in [Himes’] electric motor” such that the brake
would be bolter to the motor “very similar to appellant instant invention.”
Ans 4—5. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding (or inherent
conclusion) is in error. Without disclosing a brake, Himes cannot disclose a
brake removably coupled to a motor via a mounting bolt.
5
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Group III (Claim 16)
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites “the motor housing
[being] removably coupled to the actuator housing via [a] bolt.” The
Examiner finds this disclosure in Himes’ bolt (located near label 92 in
Himes’ Fig. 5). Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue that “Himes fails to describe the structure shown in
[the annotated] FIG. 5 labeled by the Examiner as a ‘bolt,’” and “fails to
disclose that a motor housing is removably coupled to an actuator housing at
the region of the ‘mounting flange’ and ‘mounting bolt’ labeled by the
Examiner.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Final Act. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Even if Himes does
not explicitly discuss the mounting flange and bolt referred to by the
Examiner, Appellants do not contend that one skilled in the art would not
have understood that Himes’ mounting flange and bolt provide the claimed
motor housing removably coupled to the actuator housing.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above: (1) we sustain Rejection I as it
applies to claims 1—3, 7, and 16; and (2) we do not sustain Rejection I as it
applies to claim 15.
Rejection II
Group IV (Claims 8, 9, and 12)
Appellants argue claims 8, 9, and 12 as a group. Appeal Br. 15, 18.
We select independent claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 9 and 12 stand or fall with claim 8.
Independent claim 8 includes many of the recitations of claim 1, and
additionally recites “an electric connector extending from the motor,” and
6
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
plural “electrically conductive pins extending from the actuator brake and
removably connected to the electric connector.” In rejected claim 8, the
Examiner refers back to the findings above regarding claim 1, additionally
finding that Baasch discloses the claimed electrical connector having pins.
Final Act. 7—8, 11 (citing Baasch, Fig. 1, || 28, 39). The Examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to use the pin-type connector of Baasch to
connect Reuland’s brake to its motor to “minimize electric losses.” Final
Act. 8.
Baasch discloses a motor for an air valve. The assembly includes
“four pin (PWM only) or six pin (PWM and CAN) sealed electric connector
140” that connects an ECU 142 to a PCB 138 that controls operation of the
valve. Baasch, Fig. 1, || 26—31.
Findings
Appellants argue that Baasch fails to disclose its pin-type electrical
connector extending from a brake to a motor, and Baasch is directed to an air
valve assembly rather than a brake actuator assembly. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants further contend that “none of the references applied by the
Examiner disclose or suggest electrically connecting a motor and an actuator
brake via electrical connector and pins [as] recited in claim 8.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because they do not
address the Examiner’s proposed combination of Himes, Reuland, and
Bosch. The Examiner is proposing to use Baasch’s pin-type electrical
connector to electrically connect the motor and brake of the combination of
Himes and Reuland. Appellants have failed to explain why one skilled in
7
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
the art would not use Baasch’s pin-type electrical connector to electrically
connect a motor with its brake.
Reasoning
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks a rational
basis, because Reuland “fails to disclose or even suggest that the magnetic
brake mechanism is electrically connected to an electric motor, such that
there would even be a possibility of electric losses.” Appeal Br. 17; Reply
Br. 7-8.
The Examiner disagrees, because Reuland discloses a “coil 18 adapted
to be connected in the circuit of the motor B, . . . require[ing] some sort of
. . . electrical connector.” Ans. 7 (citing Reuland 4:20—31 (“the winding 18
is adapted to be connected in the circuit for the motor.”)).
Appellants respond that Reuland discloses a circuit for the motor,
rather than a circuit of the motor, and that Reuland fails to provide any
details of the circuit and its relation to the motor, so that the Examiner erred
in finding that Reuland discloses the brake being electrically connected to
the motor itself. Reply Br. 7—8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Absent a more
persuasive explanation, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that
one skilled in the art would understand that electrical connection to a “circuit
for the motor” is, if indirectly, an electrical connection to the motor.
Groups V—VII and IX (Claims 5, 10, 11, 13, and 20)
Each of these claims recites, directly or indirectly, a shaft extending
from a first end of the motor, and the electrical connector extending from a
second end of the motor. The Examiner finds this disclosure in Baasch,
8
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
concluding that it would have been obvious to modify the combined
assembly of Himes and Reuland to “make the motor includes a first end and
a second end, the shaft extends from the first end and the electric connector
extends from the second end as taught by Baasch [to] minimize electric
losses.” Final Act. 9.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Baasch’s
electrical connector 140 extends from an end of its motor 132. Appeal Br.
18. In response, the Examiner does not explain how Baasch’s electrical
connector 140 extends from an end of its motor 132, or how the ends of
Baasch’s motor 132 relates to Reuland’s motor B with brake 12, or the
combination thereof with Himes.
We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings fail
to establish that prima facie obviousness, and we do not sustain Rejection II
as it applies to claims 5, 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20.
Group VII (Claim 18)
Appellants argue claims 18 and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 21. We
select claim 18 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 20
stands or falls with claim 18.
Claim 18 depends from independent claim 8, and recites the motor
housing being removably coupled to the actuator housing via a bolt. The
Examiner finds this disclosure in Himes. Final Act. 7, 12; Ans. 11.
Appellants refer back to arguments made for the patentability of claims 8,
13, and 16, and state that “[f]or example, Himes fails to disclose that a motor
housing is removably coupled to an actuator housing at the region of the
‘mounting flange’ and ‘mounting bolt’ labeled by the Examiner ... in the
annotated version of FIG. 5.” Appeal Br. 21.
9
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, which fails to explain
why one skilled in the art would not understand that the region of Himes’
mounting flange and mounting bolt provides a removable coupling of the
assembly housing portions.
Group VIII (Claim 4)
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “an electric connector
extending from the motor,” and “a plurality of electrically conductive pins
extending from the actuator brake and removably connected to the electric
connector.” For the reasons set for above regarding independent claim 8, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner’s findings or conclusion are in error.
Group IX (Claim 6)
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of actuator brake power conductors
extending through the motor to the electric connector, the . . . conductors
being configured to couple to a direct current (DC) electric power source.”
The Examiner finds this disclosure in Baasch. Final Act. 11 (“the actuator
brake power conductors being configured adapted to couple to a direct
current (DC) electric power source (8, Paragraphs 28 and 29, and brush type
DC motor, Paragraph 6, Figure 1).”
Appellants only refer back to the arguments made regarding the
patentability of claims 4 and 10 (Appeal Br. 22), none of which address the
limitations of claim 6 (Appeal Br. 18—19, 21—22). We, therefore, are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6.
10
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above: (1) we sustain Rejection II as it
applies to claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 18; and (2) we do not sustain Rejection II
as it applies to claims 5, 10, 11, 13, and 20.
Rejection III
The Examiner finds that Haydon discloses the claimed invention,
except for a brake disposed in the motor housing and removably coupled to
the motor. Final Act. 12—13. The Examiner finds that Reuland discloses the
claimed brake disposed in the motor housing and removably coupled to the
motor, concluding that it would have been obvious to add a removably-
coupled brake within Haydon’s motor housing “to provide lesser number of
part and more compact and reliable in operation of brake and also self-
adjusting to compensate for wear.” Id. at 13.
Regarding the Examiner’s findings, Appellants again argue that
Reuland’s two housings 1, 9 are not a single housing as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 23. For the reasons set forth above in Group I of Rejection I, we
are not persuaded by this argument.
Regarding the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, Appellants
argue that the Examiner failed to establish that modifying Haydon to include
Reuland’s brake would yield less parts, which then fails to support the
Examiner’s assertion that modifying Himes to include Reuland’s brake
would provide a “lesser number of part and more compact and reliable in
operation of [the] brake.” Appeal Br. 23—24.
The Examiner’s reasoning, however, also contends that the proposed
combination of Himes and Reuland would provide “self-adjust[ment] to
11
Appeal 2014-009120
Application 12/704,971
compensate for wear.” Final Act. 13. Appellants fail to explain why this
reasoning lacks a rational basis. We therefore sustain Rejection III.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—3, 7, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Himes and Reuland.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Himes and Reuland.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Himes, Reuland, and Baasch.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5, 10, 11, 13, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Himes, Reuland, and Baasch.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haydon and Reuland.
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
12