10544358 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

Ex Parte Rednikov

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 27, 2011

10544358 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

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. 10/544,358 08/03/2005 Valeriy Vasilievich Rednikov 7640 7590 06/27/2011 Valeriy Rednikov UI Donetskaya 26 - 176 Moscow Russia, 109651 RUSSIAN FEDERATION EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3641 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte VALERIY VASILIEVICH REDNIKOV ____________ Appeal 2009-012435 Application 10/544,358 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, LINDA E. HORNER, and GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Valeriy Vasilievich Rednikov (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 1 We acknowledge Appellant’s attempt to cancel claim 3 in the “Amended Reply Brief” filed Feb. 2, 2009. However, since the cancellation was requested in a brief and not in a separate amendment paper, the cancellation does not appear to have been entered by the Examiner. If Appellant still wants to cancel claim 3, a separate amendment document should be filed to do so. Appeal 2009-012435 Application 10/544,358 2 102(b) as being anticipated by Brodie2 (U.S. Patent No. 2,488,050, issued Nov. 15, 1949). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Invention The claimed subject matter is to an aircraft including an arresting hook for engaging a cable of a cable landing device during landing of the aircraft. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An aircraft comprising a lifting wing and an arresting hook with a grip portion, wherein the arresting hook extends above the aircraft during landing to be engaged with a cable of a cable landing device situated at a landing position, said arresting hook being mounted on the aircraft capable of rotating around the transverse aircraft axis as result of the braking force of engagement with said cable, said transverse axis being located within an area defined by the longitudinal expanse of the mean aerodynamic chord, above and behind of the center of gravity of the aircraft. OPINION Appellant contends that Brodie fails to anticipate claim 1 because Brodie’s hook 3 is not mounted on the aircraft so as to be capable of rotating around the transverse axis 96 of the Figure 12 embodiment during the time 2 Although both Appellant in the Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer sometimes refer to the reference as “Broudie,” we assume that these are typographical errors and that the correct reference name of Brodie is what was intended. Appeal 2009-012435 Application 10/544,358 3 period that the braking force of engagement is being exerted on the cable. App. Br. 3. More particularly, Appellant contends that Brodie’s hook 3 and mast 4 are fixed to the mast carriage 94 in the contact position (i.e., full line position shown in Figure 12) and not pivoted around the transverse axis 96 because hydraulic fluid pressure is maintained in the cylinder 100 during the time period when the hook 3 is contacting the cable 5 of the cable landing device so that the hook 3 and the mast 4 cannot pivot about the aircraft’s transverse axis 96. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds that Brodie anticipates claim 1 because Brodie’s hook 3 is mounted on the aircraft 1 so as to be capable of rotating around the transverse aircraft axis 20 of Figure 3 or 96 of Figure 12 as a result of the braking force of engagement of the cable and the transverse axis 96 is above and behind the center of gravity 13 of the aircraft 1. Ans. 3-4. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner acknowledges that “the arc shaped mast support allows the mast to ‘virtually’ rotate about the center of gravity of the aircraft during hook engagement.” Ans. 5-6. However, the Examiner alleges that this rotation around the center of gravity 13 of the aircraft 1 during hook engagement does not negate the fact that the hook 3 and mast 4 additionally pivot about the aircraft’s transverse axis 96 and that the transverse axis 96 is above and behind the center of gravity 13. Ans. 6. We agree with Appellant that Brodie’s hook 3 of the Figure 12 embodiment is not “capable of rotating around the transverse aircraft axis as result of the braking force of engagement with said cable” as recited in claim 1. While the Examiner correctly states on page 6 of the Answer that Brodie’s hook 3 and mast 4 are clearly capable of pivoting about the pin 96 Appeal 2009-012435 Application 10/544,358 4 of the Figure 12 embodiment, we are not persuaded that the hook 3 and the mast 4 pivot around the transverse axis 96 at the time when the hook 3 is engaging the cable 5 of the cable landing device and the braking force of engagement is being exerted. Upon our review of Brodie in its entirety, we find that at the time the hook 3 engages the cable 5, the hook 3 and the mast 4 are only capable of rotating around the center of gravity 13 on the arc- shaped mast support 77 of Figure 12, not around the transverse axis 96. See Brodie, col. 7, ll. 44-51 and 64-69. As Appellant correctly points out in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, Brodie’s hook 3 is not capable of rotating around transverse axis 96 during the time period when the braking force of engagement is being exerted on the cable because at the moment when the hook 3 engages cable 5, cylinder 100 has been actuated by hydraulic fluid pressure to prevent Brodie’s hook 3 and mast 4 from rotating around transverse axis 96. See Brodie, col. 8, ll. 6-50 and col. 9, ll. 19-46. Thus, we conclude that Brodie fails to anticipate claims 1-3.3 3 To the extent that the Examiner applies the Figure 3 embodiment of Brodie by indicating that pin 20 constitutes the transverse aircraft axis around which the hook 3 is capable of rotating (Ans. 3-4), we also conclude that Brodie does not anticipate claims 1-3. The Figure 3 embodiment of Brodie clearly indicates that the transverse axis 20 is located at or near the center of gravity of the aircraft 1. See Brodie, col. 4, ll. 19-21 and 36-39. If the transverse axis 20 is at the center of gravity 13 of the aircraft 1, Brodie fails to satisfy the language in claim 1 that the transverse axis is “above and behind the center of gravity of the aircraft,” and thus, Brodie does not either explicitly or implicitly teach that the transverse axis 20 is above and behind the center of gravity 13 of the aircraft 1. Appeal 2009-012435 Application 10/544,358 5 In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brodie. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brodie. REVERSED Klh