2020004421 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

Louis Schmidt

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 2021

2020004421 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

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. 16/358,752 03/20/2019 Louis J. Schmidt 19001.068 9970 46668 7590 09/02/2021 FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. 20916 MACK AVENUE, SUITE 2 GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI 48236 EXAMINER SHUR, STEVEN JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2021 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 LOUIS J. SCHMIDT ____________ Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–11. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a launch and landing pad for drones that is quickly and easily deployed for use and collapsed for storage,” “does not require stakes . . . to hold the pad in place,” and “is not displaced 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hoodman Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 2 by wind or downwardly moving air produced by the drone . . . during launch and/or landing.” Spec. 4:3–14. Claims 1, 2, and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A transportable launch and landing pad for drones, said pad comprising: a round surface member for supporting a drone on a ground surface; said surface member including an endless flexible weighted ground surface contacting, engaging and conforming perimeter disposable on the flat or undulating topography of the ground surface, said endless flexible weighted ground surface contacting, engaging and conforming perimeter having a round profile and being formed of a stranded carbon steel wire rope that is comprised of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi-wire core, the outer layers and the core moving independently from one another; said surface member having a diameter establishing an area of said pad that is greater than any linear distance across an area of downwardly moving air of the drone when operated, and said round profile of said wire rope equalizingly dispersing drone thrust pressure; wherein said pad maintains a position on the ground surface without any separate securing member inserted into the ground, and said pad is not lifted from the ground surface by air from the thrust of the drone during approach and departure of the drone relative to the pad. Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng ’283 (US 6,073,283, iss. June 13, 2000), Zheng ’635 (US 6,192,635 B1, iss. Feb. 27, 2001), and Ronstan (Ronstan.com.au, Selection Advice Stainless Steel Wire, Internet Archive: Wayback Machine (Apr. 29, 2009), Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 3 available at http://web.archive.org/web/20090429033742/http://www.ronstan.com.au:80/ marine5/SAwirerope.asp). Claims 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Le Gette (US 6,170,100 B1, iss. Jan. 9, 2001), Zheng ’635, and Ronstan. ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because the combination of Zheng ’283, Zheng ’683, and Ronstan does not teach or suggest a “perimeter . . . being formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope that is comprised of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi-wire core, the outer layers and the core moving independently from one another,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17–18. The Examiner relies on a combination of ’Zheng 283, Zheng ’635, and Ronstan as teaching the argued limitation. See Final Act. 5–7. In particular, the Examiner first finds that continuous frame member 24 of Zheng ’283 teaches a “perimeter . . . formed of a stranded carbon steel wire rope.” Final Act. 5 (citing Zheng ’283, 3:20–21, Fig. 2). We have reviewed the portions of Zheng ’283 relied upon by the Examiner, and we agree with Appellant that Zheng ’283 does not teach that the perimeter is formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope. Appeal Br. 17. Instead, Zheng ’283 teaches that continuous frame member 24 is formed of “flexible coilable steel” (Zheng ’283 3:20–25), having a flat structure with a solid, rectangular cross section (id. at Fig. 2). We find nothing in the cited Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 4 portions of Zheng ’283 disclosing that frame member 24 has a structure corresponding to a stranded wire rope, or that the steel used in that structure is carbon steel. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that continuous frame member 24 teaches a perimeter formed of “stranded carbon steel wire rope” lacks adequate evidentiary support. The Examiner next finds that Zheng ’635 teaches a “perimeter . . . formed of a stranded carbon steel wire rope . . . that is comprised of outer layers of helically wound wires.” Final Act. 6 (citing Zheng ’635, 3:7–8, Fig. 1A) (emphasis omitted). We have reviewed the portions of Zheng ’635 relied upon by the Examiner, and we agree with Appellant that Zheng ’635 does not teach that the perimeter is formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope having outer layers of helically wound wires. Appeal Br. 17. Instead, Zheng ’635 teaches that continuous frame member 32 is formed of “flexible coilable steel.” Zheng ’635, 3:6–8. Zheng ’635 depicts continuous frame member 32 as a single wire coiled like a tension spring. See id. at Fig. 1A). We find nothing in the cited portions of Zheng ’635 disclosing that continuous frame member 32 has a structure corresponding to a stranded wire rope comprised of outer layers of helically wound wires, or that the steel used in that structure is carbon steel. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that continuous frame member 32 teaches a perimeter formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope having outer layers of helically wound wires lacks adequate evidentiary support. The Examiner then finds that Ronstan’s description of 7x7 construction wire and 7x19 construction wire teaches “stranded steel wire rope . . . comprised of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi-wire core, the outer layers and the core moving Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 5 independently from one another.” Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted). The problem with the Examiner’s finding, however, is that the 7x7 and 7x19 construction wires shown in Ronstan depict a single outer layer (i.e., six strands, each strand having 7 and 19 wires, respectively) wrapped around a core wire. See Ronstan 1. Ronstan does not depict multiple outer layers wrapped around a core, as recited in claim 1. Ronstan also teaches that the wire rope is made from “stainless steel,” not “carbon steel,” as required by claim 1. Therefore, Ronstan does not remedy the shortcomings in both Zheng ’283 and Zheng ’635 identifed above. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Ronstan does not teach or suggest a stranded carbon steel wire rope that is comprised of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi-wire core, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent Claim 2 and Dependent Claims 3–7 Independent claim 2 recites language substantially similar to the language of claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the same erroneous findings. See Appeal Br. 41–42 (Claims App.); Final Act. 8–10. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 2 and dependent claims 3–7 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Independent Claim 8 and Dependent Claims 9–11 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because the combination of Le Gette, Zheng ’635, and Ronstan does not teach or suggest an “endless frame member being formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope that is comprised Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 6 of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi- wire core, the outer layers and the core moving independently from one another,” as recited in claim 8. Appeal Br. 34–35. The Examiner finds that Le Gette teaches an endless frame member “being formed of a stranded carbon steel wire rope (Fig. 2, ‘closed spring- like loop’ 112; ‘closed spring-like loop 112 can be made up of, for example, metal or any similar type of material”, Col. 2, Lines 44–46).” Final Act. 12– 13. We have reviewed the portions of Le Gette relied upon by the Examiner, and we agree with Appellant that Le Gette does not teach that the perimeter is formed of stranded carbon steel wire rope. Appeal Br. 34. Instead, Le Gette teaches that loop 112 is made up a flat piece of metal having a solid, rectangular cross section. See Le Gette 2:44–46, Fig. 2. We find nothing in the cited portions of Le Gette disclosing that loop 112 has a structure corresponding to a stranded wire rope, or that the metal used in that structure is carbon steel. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that loop 112 teaches a perimeter formed of “stranded carbon steel wire rope” lacks adequate evidentiary support. The Examiner next finds that Zheng ’635 teaches a “perimeter . . . formed of a stranded carbon steel wire rope . . . that is comprised of outer layers of helically wound wires.” Final Act. 13 (citing Zheng ’635, 3:7–8, Fig. 1A) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner then finds that Ronstan’s description of 7x7 construction wire and 7x19 construction wire teaches “stranded steel wire rope . . . comprised of multiple outer layers of helically wound wires wrapped around a multi-wire core, the outer layers and the core moving independently from one another.” Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted). However, for the reasons set forth above with respect to the rejection of Appeal 2020-004421 Application 16/358,752 7 claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, these findings lack adequate evidentiary support. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7 103 Zheng ’283, Zheng ’635, Ronstan 1–7 8–11 103 Le Gette, Zheng ’635, Ronstan 8–11 Overall Outcome 1–11 REVERSED