Ex Parte Sautron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13529204 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
13/529,204 06/21/2012 Dominique P. Sautron PA21644U; 67010-445
PUS1
4282
26096 7590 08/11/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C EXAMINER
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
NGUYEN, NGA X
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOMINIQUE P. SAUTRON, CAROL M. SANOGUEIRA, and
EVELYN V. KOBIALKA
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,2041
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—17, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corp. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “environmental control
systems for an aircraft, and more particularly to an electric environmental
control system (ECS).” Spec. 11. The ECS includes interfaces to a first
onboard power generation system, interfaces to a second onboard power
generation system, and a controller operable to distribute power from the
first and second power generation systems to a plurality of aircraft
environmental systems. Spec., Abstract. Claims 1 and 12, which are
illustrative, read as follows:
1. An aircraft comprising:
a first environmental control system interface with a first
onboard power generation system;
a second environmental control system interface with a
second onboard power generation system;
a controller connected to said first environmental control
system interface and said second environmental control system
interface, said controller operable to distribute power from said
first power generation system and said second power generation
system to a plurality of aircraft environmental systems, wherein
said controller is operable to power a subset of said plurality of
environmental systems from said first onboard power generation
system, and a remainder of said plurality of environmental
systems from said second onboard power generation system; and
wherein said first onboard power generation system and
said second onboard power generation system are incorporated
in a wing of said aircraft.
12. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein said controller is operable
to dynamically classify each environmental system in said
plurality of environmental systems as one of an essential
environmental system and a non-essential environmental system.
2
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
Rejections
Claims 1—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Breit et al. (US 2008/0150356 Al; published June 26, 2008)
(“Breit”). Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 1—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breit and Mueller et al. (US 2012/
0008336 Al; published Jan. 12, 2012) (“Mueller”). Final Act. 8-12.
Claims 12—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Breit, Mueller, and Rodgers et al. (US
2007/0010916 Al; published Jan. 11, 2007) (“Rodgers”). Final Act. 12-14.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Breit discloses “a second
environmental control system interface with a second onboard power
generation system” and “wherein said first onboard power generation system
and said second onboard power generation system are incorporated in a wing
of said aircraft,” as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Breit,
Mueller, and Rodgers teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 12?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
3
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 2—5. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
§102 Rejection of Claims 1—11
Appellants do not argue claims 1—11 separately but, instead, rely on
the same arguments for all of the claims. See App. Br. 2—A. We select claim
1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 2—11 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
Appellants contend Breit does not disclose “a second environmental
control system interface with a second onboard power generation system,”
as recited in claim 1. According to Appellants, the Examiner relies on
Breit’s fuel cell 514 for disclosing the claimed “second onboard power
generation system.” App. Br. 3. Appellants argue
[F]uel cells are not power generation systems, as the term would
be understood by one of skill in the art. The instant specification,
at paragraph 14, distinguishes electric storage devices, such as
fuel cells and batteries, from power generation systems. One of
ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would
understand that a power storage system is a system that stores an
electric charge and discharges over time, whereas a power
generation system converts an energy source such as rotational
motion or sunlight into an electric charge.
App. Br. 3^4.
Appellants further contend Breit fails to disclose “wherein said first
onboard power generation system and said second onboard power generation
system are incorporated in a wing of said aircraft,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, the Examiner finds “Figure 3 of Breit
discloses a first and second power generation system (214, and 219) in the
wing of the aircraft.” Id. Appellants argue Breit discloses element 219 is a
starter that requires AC power to operate and start the engine aircraft 218
4
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
and not a power generation system, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 4
(citing Breit 127).
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Breit discloses
“[a] generator may be included, for example, integrated with starter 519, and
turned by engine 518 to supply either primary or supplemental power to
system 502 via AC bus 520.” Breit | 31. Figure 6 of Breit depicts an
aircraft having two engines, each engine having a starter/generator 519 co­
located therewith. Breit, Fig. 6. Breit discloses “the engine/generator
position may be constrained to the wing or tail based on requirements related
to enabling flight of the aircraft. Breit 128. As such, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 2—3) Breit discloses “a second environmental control system
interface with a second onboard power generation system” and “wherein
said first onboard power generation system and said second onboard power
generation system are incorporated in a wing of said aircraft,” as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1; or claims 2—11, which are not separately argued with particularity,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
§103 Rejection of Claims 111
Appellants do not argue claims 1—11 separately but, instead, rely on
the same arguments for all of the claims. See App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 1—2.
We select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 2—11 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
Appellants contend the combination of Breit and Mueller do not teach
or suggest “wherein said first onboard power generation system and said
5
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
second onboard power generation system are incorporated in a wing of said
aircraft,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 1—2. Initially,
Appellants contend Breit fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation for
the reasons presented with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. App. Br. 4. We find Appellants’ contention unpersuasive for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Appellants further contend the combination of Breit and Mueller is
improper. App. Br. 4—5. Appellants argue:
Breit is directed toward a system and method of power
distribution where power dissipation through line losses is
reduced by the inclusion of power sources in close proximity to
each of the powered systems. One of skill in the art, having the
benefit of the instant disclosure, would understand that
environmental control systems are included within the body of
an aircraft. Modifying Breit to utilize power generation systems
incorporated in the wing of the aircraft would place the power
sources remote from the systems being powered. The result of
placing the power sources remote from the powered systems
would be the reintroduction of the very line losses that Breit is
explicitly designed to prevent.
Id.', see also Reply Br. 1—2.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. As discussed
supra, Breit teaches first and second onboard generation systems located in
the wing of an aircraft. See Breit, Fig. 6. Further, Breit teaches locating
power sources close to loads “including a window heating unit, an anti-ice
unit, and environmental control systems.” Breit 131 (emphasis added).
Breit, therefore, teaches or suggests that the load may be located in
proximity to the wing of the aircraft. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 4—5) that “[mjodifying Breit to utilize
6
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
power generation systems incorporated in the wing of the aircraft would
place the power sources remote from the systems being powered.”
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; or claims 2—11, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
§103 rejection of Claims 12—17
Appellants do not argue claims 12—17 separately but, instead, rely on
the same arguments for all of the claims. See App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—3.
We select claim 12 as representative. Accordingly, claims 13—17 stand or
fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
Appellants contend the combination of Breit, Mueller, and Rodgers
does not disclose or suggest “wherein said controller is operable to
dynamically classify each environmental system in said plurality of
environmental systems as one of an essential environmental system and a
non-essential environmental system,” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 5—7;
Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, “the system of Rodgers provides a
‘dynamic load management’ system that determines which loads to provide
power to at any given time based on a priority value assigned to each of the
loads, and on an available amount of power.” App. Br. 6 (citing Rodgers
170). Appellants argue Rodgers fails to teach or suggest a controller
operable to dynamically classify each environmental system but, instead,
teaches a non-changing or static priority classification system and
dynamically deciding which system receives power based on the static
priority level assigned in the system and the amount of power available. Id.
Appellants further argue “Rodgers provides no teaching with regards to
classifying environmental systems as essential or non-essential” but, instead,
7
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
teaches “utilization of a priority list assigning some electrical systems a
higher priority than other electrical systems.” App. Br. 6. Appellants argue
“[e]ven if the priority level can be considered a classification of essential or
non-essential electrical system[s] . . . the system of Rodgers is not capable of
altering those classifications once set, and thus does not ‘dynamically
classify’ the systems.” Id.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Rodgers teaches
if the power demand increases, an adaptive load management system can
cause the most important loads to stay online while the least important loads
can be disconnected. Rodgers 170. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Rodgers teaches or suggests classifying systems as essential (e.g., most
important) or non-essential (e.g., least important). Rodgers further teaches
“[t]he decision to switch the load on or off is made on the basis of the
importance (priority) of the load, and/or historical data regarding the load
behavior gathered beforehand by the dynamic load management system
300.” Id. Further, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 12 (citing
Rodgers 76—98)) that Rodgers teaches or suggests dynamically
prioritizing the loads. In particular, Rodgers teaches the adaptive load
management system provides a smart adaptive management of loads when
in restricted power mode by “[dynamically changing] the list of loads with
time according to measured present power consumption, dynamic priority of
each particular load, and availability of power from the backup power source
114.” Rodgers 195 (emphasis added); see also Rodgers 197 (teaching the
dynamic load management system “[mjaintains the dynamic list of priorities
for each load.”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Rodgers teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 12.
8
Appeal 2016-003337
Application 13/529,204
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12; or claims 13—17, which fall therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9