Ex Parte Zywiak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13898840 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/898,840 05/21/2013
87521 7590 05/31/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas M. Zywiak
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.
71382US01 (U310357US) 4274
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, XUAN LANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. ZYWIAK and DAVID ANDERSON 1
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas M. Zywiak and David Anderson ("Appellants") appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which the
Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to an active aircraft brake cooling
system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An active aircraft brake cooling system for an aircraft
compnsmg:
an air intake and conditioning system mounted in a body
of the aircraft, the air intake and conditioning system including
an outlet portion that is fluidically exposed to a landing gear bay.
Schjolin
Schulba
Hutton
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
US 2, 198, 792 Apr. 30, 1940
US 6,419,054 Bl July 16, 2002
US 2007 /0209383 Al Sept. 13, 2007
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hutton and Schjolin.
(II) Claims 1--4, 7-10, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art
(Appellants' "Background of the Invention") (AAP A) and Schjolin.
(III) Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over AAP A, Schjolin, and Schulba.
ANALYSIS
Rejection(!); Claims 1 and 13
The Examiner finds that Hutton discloses an active aircraft brake
cooling system for an aircraft, but notes that this system is not mounted in
the body of the aircraft. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner relies on Schjolin to
2
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
teach a cooling system that draws air from a passenger compartment on a
bus to cool a clutch assembly. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use inside air,
from the passenger compartment, as taught by Schjolin, to cool the brake
system of Hutton "since air from the passenger compartment is cooler than
outside air and is also relatively free of dust and debris," and an internal
system would eliminate the need for external equipment as well as the time
to move such equipment into place. Id.
Appellant argues that "the combination fails to teach [] all the claimed
elements," because Hutton discloses an external aircraft brake cooling
system and Schjolin cools a "clutch" in a bus without "providing
conditioned air, or guiding air to a brake system of any kind, let alone a
brake system for an aircraft." Br. 3.
The Examiner responds that although Figures 7 a-8b of Hutton are
directed to a ground based cooling unit, Hutton also discloses an on board
cooling unit. Ans. 3 (citing Hutton i-f 3). The Examiner states that based on
the disclosure in Schjolin of "sourcing cool air from a passenger
compartment" to cool a clutch, coupled with Hutton's disclosure of
conditioned air in a passenger compartment using an on board cooling
system and using conditioned air to cool brakes, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that air from the passenger compartment that was
conditioned by an onboard cooling system could be readily used to cool the
brakes, instead of using conditioned air from a ground based unit. Ans. 3--4.
According to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
the advantages of doing so, including cooling and dissipating frictional heat
3
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
from the brakes while the aircraft is moving such as when taxiing to a gate.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner has the better position here. As the Examiner correctly
notes, "[t]he difference between Hutton's cooling system and the claimed
cooling system is the location of the source of conditioned air." Ans. 3.
Although we appreciate that Schjolin does not use conditioned air for
cooling or guide cooling air to a brake, the Examiner only relies on Schjolin
to teach the location of a cool, relatively dust free, air source, namely, the
passenger compartment. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner correctly finds that
Hutton discloses conditioned air that is used to cool an aircraft brake. See
id. That it is known to cool and condition a passenger compartment with an
on board cooling system (Hutton i-f 3), coupled with Schjolin's disclosure of
the advantages of cooling a component using cool, clean air from a
passenger compartment, and Hutton's disclosure of using cool and
conditioned air to cool brakes (Hutton i-f 63), supports the Examiner's
reasoning. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that, in light of these
teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
channel conditioned air, originating from a conditioning system mounted in
a body of the aircraft, to a landing gear bay to actively cool an aircraft brake,
as required by claim 1.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight because there is no motivation to apply Schjolin's
clutch cooling to the brakes of an aircraft. Br. 4. Appellant contends that
because the way brakes and clutches work and generate heat is different,
"one looking to cool brakes would not look to the clutch cooling art." Id.
Specifically, Appellant contends that because "aircraft brakes generate
4
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
extreme levels of heat" whereas a clutch "provides a more constant, less
severe, heat generation," there is no motivation "to look to bus art when
cooling aircraft brakes." Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive given that Hutton already
uses cooled air to cool brakes. Because Hutton and Schjolin both use cool
air to cool a vehicle component, the Examiner's use of the specific origin of
the air source of Schj olin is reasonable and would commend itself to a
person of ordinary skill in the art looking to use air to cool a brake.
Although we appreciate that the amount of heat generated in the devices of
Hutton and Schjolin may not be the same, it is within the abilities of one of
ordinary skill in the art to regulate the amount, duration, or temperature of
the cooling air to provide the required amount of cooling. The Examiner has
also provided reasoning to support the rejection, namely, to provide a
"cooling system [that] is readily available on the aircraft" that would
eliminate the need for ground equipment. Final Act. 3. Because the
Examiner's reasoning for the proposed modification is supported by rational
underpinnings found in the prior art, we do not agree that the Examiner's
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Hutton and Schjolin. Appellant
relies on the same arguments for the patentability of independent claim 13
(Br. 3--4), and, for the same reasons, we likewise affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 13.
Rejection (II); Claims 1--4, 7-10, 13-15, and 17-19
Claims 1--4, 13-15, and 17-19
5
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
Appellant contends that because the known aircraft brake cooling
systems are based on passive cooling where heat is dissipated over time and
Schjolin uses unconditioned air from a passenger compartment of a bus to
cool a clutch, it is not apparent how the combination results in "providing
conditioned air, or guiding air to a brake system of any kind, let alone a
brake system for an aircraft." Br. 4--5.
The Examiner responds that the combination of AAP A and Schjolin is
proper because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the
advantages of using cool, clean air to actively cool and dissipate heat created
by frictional contact. The Examiner states that the reason for the
combination is to "gain faster cooling, to protect the heated components
from overheating." Ans. 5.
Although we appreciate that Schjolin's air from the passenger
compartment is cooler than outside air and also relatively free of dust and
debris, the Examiner does not adequately address Appellant's argument that
the combination does not result in "providing conditioned air, or guiding air
to a brake system of any kind, let alone a brake system for an aircraft." Br.
5. Schjolin draws air from a passenger compartment 15 that is cooler and
cleaner than air that is taken from a power plant compartment 11 and then
guides the air to the power plant compartment 11 for cooling a clutch
contained therein. Schjolin, p. 2, col. 1, 11. 2-5; Fig. 1. By contrast,
Appellant's Specification discloses that an environmental control system
includes elements such as a heat exchanger that delivers conditioned air that
is used to cool the brakes. Spec. i-fi-f 12 and 13.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
recited conditioning system consistent with the Specification is not just a
6
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
system that delivers cool air that happens to be cooler because it is drawn
from a cooler location, but requires a system having elements that treat the
air such as a heat exchanger so that the air becomes conditioned. The
Examiner does not adequately explain why Schjolin's air delivery system is
a conditioning system. Nor does the Examiner adequately explain why it
would have been obvious to redirect air that cools a power plant
compartment to cool brakes. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2--4 depending from claim 1. The Examiner
relies on the same findings and reasoning for the rejection of independent
claim 13. See Final Act. 8. Appellant advances the same arguments for
claim 13. See Br. 5. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and of claims 14,
15, and 17-19 depending from claim 13.
Claims 7-10
Although independent claim 7 includes substantially similar
limitations to those of claim 1, for claim 7, the Examiner determines that the
proposed modified version of the AAP A would include "a conventional air
conditioning system on the aircraft which is used to cool the passenger
compartment." Final Act. 7.
The AAPA's entire discussion of conventional aircraft cooling
systems relates to brake systems, specifically:
Conventional landing gear brake systems rely on passive cooling
to mitigate the heat generated upon landing. Typical passive
cooling systems include the use of radiation that allows
generated heat to gradually dissipate, and the use of high
temperature ceramics that are capable of withstanding the heat
and which promote heat dissipation.
7
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
Spec. i-f 2. As Appellant correctly contends, Schjolin does not disclose an air
conditioned passenger compartment. See Br. 4--5. Thus, there is no mention
in either the AAP A or Schjolin of an air conditioned passenger
compartment. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
proposed combination of the AAP A and Schjolin to use "a conventional air
conditioning system on the aircraft which is used to cool the passenger
compartment ... to cool the brake assembly" (Final Act. 7) is based on
impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection
of claim 7 and of claims 8-10 depending from claim 7.
Rejection (111)
The Examiner does not rely on Schulba in any way that would remedy
the deficiency in Rejection (II) discussed above. See Final Act. 9-10.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 16 as
unpatentable over AAPA, Schjolin, and Schulba for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable
over Hutton and Schjolin is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-10, 13-15, and 17-
19 as unpatentable over AAP A and Schjolin is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 16 as
unpatentable over AAP A, Schjolin, and Schulba is reversed.
8
Appeal2017-007861
Application 13/898,840
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
9