Ex Parte Hanlon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12693088 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/693,088
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
01125/2010
02/29/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Casey Hanlon
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.
H0025174-1160/1147-080US1 3372
EXAMINER
IRVIN, THOMAS W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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 CASEY HANLON, JAMES NEIL QUITMEYER,
and
ALLAN BLUNT
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Casey Hanlon et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-18, 20, and 21.
Claim 19 has been canceled. Reply Br. 3 (filed Oct. 3, 2013). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3 (filed April 22, 2013).
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention "generally relates to aircraft brake actuation
systems." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining an aircraft operational state;
measuring an application force supplied to a brake pedal
of an aircraft; and
moving an actuator brake to engage an electric brake
actuator and de-energizing the electric brake actuator when (i)
the determined aircraft operational state is a ground-idle state,
wherein the ground-idle state is a state in which the aircraft is
moving, and (ii) the measured application force is greater than a
set force magnitude.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-18, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chico (US 2006/0152080 Al,
pub. July 13, 2006) and Riebe (US 2006/0226698 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chico, Riebe, and Kolberg (US 2006/0184306 Al, pub.
Aug. 17, 2006).
III. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chico, Riebe, and Griffith (US 2008/0084109 Al, pub.
Apr. 10, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chico, Riebe, Kolberg, and Griffith.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Chico discloses most of the limitations of
method claim 1 including "moving an actuator brake to lock/engage the
electric brake actuator and de-energizing the electric brake actuator (end of
110 ... ) when the determined aircraft operational state is a ground-idle state
(step 102 affirmed in 106)," and that "the measured application force is
greater than a set force magnitude (S 1, step 104 ). " Final Act. 2 (citing
Chico, i-fi-f 10, 11; Abstract) (mailed Nov. 23, 2012). The Examiner relies on
Riebe for teaching "controlling the brakes of an aircraft (fig. 1) to apply a
continued light braking (step 92) during a taxiing ground-idle state (step 82)
of the aircraft.'' Id. (citing Riebe, ,-r 6). The Examiner then concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify "the control of Chico et al. to include a
taxiing speed to the aircraft operational state for the controlled braking, as
taught by Riebe et al., to enabl[e] the aircraft operator/controller to control
the taxiing speed of the aircraft, thus limiting taxi snubs for improved
passenger comfort and longer brake wear life." Id. at 3. The Examiner
"notes that in the control as modified, the method of Chico would still be
carried out as disclosed, with the exception of enabling automatic brake
holding control during both a standstill and taxiing mode." Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to "establish that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason with a rational
3
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088
underpinning to modify the method disclosed by Chico such that the
'parking mode' is also used while the aircraft is moving." Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants contend that the Examiner's "assertion of obviousness[,
however,] fails to provide any reason why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have sought to modify the method disclosed by Chico to provide
continued light braking during taxiing in the first place," because "Chico
does not, for example, identify any issues with braking during taxiing of the
aircraft." Id. Appellants thus conclude that "the only reason for the [further]
modification to the method and system disclosed by Chico in view of Riebe
so that the locking member 14 disclosed by Chico was used to achieve the
continued light braking during taxiing would appear to have come from
Appellants' own disclosure, which is impermissible." Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because the purpose of
Chico's locking member 14 is to lock pusher 13 in position to exert a force
on stacked disks 11 in a parking mode to thereby maintain a parking force
"without the assistance of the electric motor, and the electrical power supply
thereto can be switched off, thereby reducing the electricity consumption of
the brakes and preventing the electric motors from overheating." Chico i-fi-1
29-30. Chico discloses that the parking mode is used "to keep the aircraft
stationary when it is parked" or when "it is waiting to taxi onto the runway
(sometimes for several minutes)." Id. at i-fi-15, 6. In other words, Chico
discloses using the locking member while the aircraft is parked or waiting to
taxi, but does not disclose that the system is used while taxiing. As such,
although Riebe discloses that it was known in the art to control the brakes of
an aircraft to apply a continued light braking during a taxiing ground-idle
state of the aircraft, we find the Examiner has not adequately explained
4
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088
what would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to
control Chico's brake system without the assistance of the electric motor
when taxiing the aircraft. The Examiner has not provided any findings that
Chico recognized a problem with the electric motors overheating during
taxiing. Thus, because the articulated reason for modifying Chico as
proposed is not supported by rational underpinnings, the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 appears to be the result of improper
hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3 and 20 depending
therefrom, as unpatentable over Chico and Riebe.
Independent system claims 6 and 12 require, inter alia, a control
system configured to command an actuator brake and de-energize the
electric brake actuator when the aircraft is moving. See Appeal Br. 20 and
23. The Examiner;s conclusion of obviousness is based on the same faulty
reasoning as discussed supra. See Final Act. 3--4. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 6 and 12, and of claims 10, 13-18, and 21 depending
from one of these claims, over the combined teachings of Chico and Riebe.
Rejections II-IV
The Examiner's use of the disclosures of Kolberg and Griffith in the
various combinations of Rejections II-IV does not remedy the deficiencies
of the combined teachings of Chico and Riebe as discussed supra. See Final
Act. 5-7. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 4 as unpatentable
5
Appeal2014-000644
Application 12/693,088
over Chico, Riebe, and Kolberg; of claim 5 as unpatentable over Chico,
Riebe, and Griffith; and of claim 11 as unpatentable over Chico, Riebe,
Kolberg, and Griffith.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18, 20, and 21 is reversed.
REVERSED
6