Ex Parte Kusic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

12801812 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

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.
12/801,812 06/28/2010 Tom Kusic 2946
7590 09/25/2014
TOM KUSIC
GPO BOX 932
MELBOURNE, VIC., 3001
AUSTRALIA
EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOM KUSIC
____________

Appeal 2012-006088
Application 12/801,812
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1–4 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-006088
Application 12/801,812

2

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a tilt rotor vertical
take-off aircraft (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.

1. A vertical take-off aircraft comprising a main
body, a main power plant, an additional power plant,
and a propeller, which propeller is above the main
power plant, with vertical lift able to be achieved. by
means of the main power plant rotating the propeller
and thereby forcing air in a downward direction by means
the propeller, and which additional power plant is
able to produce thrust extending in a lateral direction
relative to the main body of the aircraft such that
rotational force exerted on the main body of the
aircraft by rotation of the propeller can be countered,
and which main power plant and propeller are
connected to the main body of the aircraft by a tilt
enabling joint such that the main power plant and
propeller are able to be tilted together in a plurality
of directions and angles relative to the main body of
the aircraft, in a controlled manner.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sudrow (US Patent 3,135,481, iss. Jun. 2, 1964) and
Burke (US 2,378,617, iss. Jun. 19, 1945).

Appeal 2012-006088
Application 12/801,812

3

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
in claims 1–4 the power plant is a rotor drive assembly and that in contrast
the rotor in Sudrow are rotated by a drive assembly, and not the power plant
on its own (Br. 3, Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner has determined however that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 4–5).
We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner's rationale
for the rejection as set forth in in the Answer at pages 5-6 and affirm the
rejection of claim 1.
In response to the Appellant’s arguments, we note here that Sudrow
discloses an aircraft with rotor blades 12, l4 placed above a driving engine
22 (a main power plant) as well as a tilt enabling joint 80 for the blades.
Burke shows a secondary rotor set 7 (an additional power plant) on a
helicopter with a separate motor 8. The modification of the rotor aircraft of
Sudrow to include an additional rotor set in the vertical direction as taught
by Burke is considered to be an obvious, predictable modification of known
elements for the advantage of more stable flight as taught by Burke.
The Appellant has argued that in claim 1 that power plant is a rotor
drive assembly and in contrast the rotor in Sudrow is rotated by a drive

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-006088
Application 12/801,812

4

assembly, and not the power plant on its own (Br. 3). However, the claims
are drafted broadly enough to not exclude a drive assembly from being used
and there is no requirement that one cannot be used. Regardless, in Sudrow
the driving engine 22 (a power plant) provides the power to the rotor blades
12, 14, thus rotating the blades and this argument is not deemed persuasive.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims
which were not argued separately is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

pgc