Simmonds Precision Products, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2020001270 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
15/402,686 01/10/2017 Peter J. Carini 1510801.682US1 2631
61654 7590 12/14/2020
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
DAVIS HOLLINGTON, OCTAVIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER J. CARINI
____________

Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Simmonds Precision Products, Inc. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed May 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at
3.
2 Non-Final Office Action entered December 31, 2018 (“Office Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 illustrate the subject matter on
appeal, and read as follows:
1. A hoist system comprising:
a load attaching member;
a single conductor connecting the load attaching member
to a hoist for raising and lowering the load attaching member
and the single conductor; and
a sensor operatively connected to the load attaching
member to sense a monitored parameter of the load attaching
member, wherein the sensor is electrically connected to a
receiving module of the hoist for single wired-transmission
along the single conductor from the sensor to the receiving
module.

16. An aircraft including:
an airframe; and
a hoist system including:
a load attaching member;
a single conductor connecting the load attaching
member to a hoist for raising and lowering the load
attaching member and the single conductor; and
a sensor operatively connected to the load
attaching member to sense a monitored parameter of the
load attaching member, wherein the sensor is electrically
connected to a receiving module of the hoist for single
wired-transmission along the single conductor from the
sensor to the receiving module.

17. A method comprising:
transmitting data from a sensor configured to monitor at
least one parameter of a hoist system along a cable having only
a single conductor.

Appeal Br. 15, 17, 18 Claims Appendix (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered September 30, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Repp;3
II. Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Repp in view of Wiggins;4 and
III. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Repp in view of Kettenbach.5
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and rejections of
claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons set forth in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below.
Claims 1 and 16 require the recited hoist system to include a single
conductor that connects a load attaching member to a hoist, and a sensor
electrically connected to a receiving module of the hoist for single wired-
transmission along the single conductor from the sensor to the receiving
module. Claim 17 requires the recited method to comprise transmitting data
from a sensor configured to monitor at least one parameter of a hoist system
along a cable having only a single conductor.

3 US 2016/0009393 A1, published January 14, 2016.
4 US 4,193,129, issued March 11, 1980.
5 US 9,274,011 B1, issued March 1, 2016.
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

4
The Examiner finds that Repp discloses an apparatus comprising
single conductor 104 that connects load attaching member 106 to hoist
system 101, and sensors 306, 608 that “are electrically connected to a
receiving module 609 of the hoist for single wired-transmission along the
single conductor from the sensor 608 to the receiving module.” Office Act.
3 (citing Repp ¶¶ 26–28, 47–51, 53, 60, 61; Figs. 1, 5, and 6).
On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that Repp discloses a single conductor
and single wired-transmission along the single conductor from a sensor to a
receiving module, as required by independent claims 1 and 16, or discloses
transmitting data along a cable having only a single conductor, as required
by independent claim 17, for reasons expressed by Appellant (Appeal Br.
10–11; Reply Br. 10), and discussed below.
We begin our analysis by interpreting the term “single conductor”
recited in claims 1, 16, and 17.
We note initially that a “conductor” is defined as a substance or
medium that conducts heat, light, sound, or an electric charge. The Free
Dictionary.com, https:// www.thefreedictionary.com/ conductor. We do not
find an explicit definition of a “single conductor” in Appellant’s
Specification, however, and neither Appellant nor the Examiner directs us to
any such definition. Nonetheless, the Specification does disclose that the
hoist system of Appellant’s invention includes a load attaching member and
a single conductor, such as a steel cable, that connects the load attaching
member to a hoist. Spec. 2, ll. 2–3; 5, ll. 12–13. The Specification discloses
that a sensor is operatively connected to the load attaching member to sense
a monitored parameter of the load attaching member, and the sensor is
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

5
electrically connected to a receiving module of the hoist for single wired-
transmission along the single conductor from the sensor to the receiving
module. Spec. 2, ll. 4–7. The Specification discloses that all power and/or
data transmission between the sensor and the receiving module can be
conducted along the single conductor. Spec. 2, ll. 8–9. The Specification
explains that “[t]he single conductor can be connected as a monopole
between the sensor and the receiving module without a second conductor
completing a closed circuit between the sensor and the receiving module,”
and “[t]he single conductor can form an open circuit between the sensor and
the receiving module.” Spec. 2, ll. 9–12.
Appellant’s Specification thus describes a “single conductor,” such as
a steel cable, which connects a load attaching member to a hoist, and forms
an open circuit between a sensor connected to the load attaching member
and a receiving module of the hoist for transmission of power and/or data
from the sensor to the receiving module, where a second conductor does not
complete a closed circuit between the sensor and the receiving module.
Consistent with these disclosures in Appellant’s Specification, and in
accordance with the plain meaning of a “conductor,” we interpret a “single
conductor” as recited in claims 1, 16, and 17 as a substance or medium,
embodied in an element such as a cable, which forms an open circuit
between a sensor and receiving module for transmission of an electric charge
(power and/or data) from the sensor to the receiving module, in the absence
of a second element (conductor) that completes a closed circuit between the
sensor and the receiving module.6 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55

6 We note that single conductors as described in Appellant’s Specification
are known in the art as single conducting or transmission wires (or single-
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

6
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“While the Board must give the terms their broadest
reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the
specification and the record evidence.”); In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d
1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term
its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the
claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation
that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification.’” (quoting Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054)).
Repp discloses helicopter-hoist system 101 comprising hook 106
(load attaching member), cable 104, and smart hook 102. Repp ¶ 27; Fig. 1.
Repp discloses that smart hook 102 includes integrated load cell 306
(sensor), control system 310, and antenna 312. Repp ¶¶ 47, 49; Fig. 1.
Repp discloses that load cell 306 measures the load on hook 106, and Repp
further indicates that control system 310 may be configured to measure and
transmit load data. Repp ¶¶ 47, 49. Repp discloses that “[a]ll load and
sensor data may be stored in any suitable-memory-storage device 317 within
smart-hook 102 for post-mission downloading and review,” or
“[a]lternatively, an antenna 312 serves as a means for communicating
wirelessly between smart-hook-control system 310 and other systems
located in helicopter 100 or elsewhere.” Repp ¶ 49. Repp discloses second
antenna 611 located in hoist system 101, which “may provide a mechanism

wire transmission lines) that do not form a closed circuit, as evidenced by
U.S. patent 6,104,107.
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

7
for transmitting and receiving data to/from smart hook 102, and for
communicating with display devices 115, and other devices.” Repp ¶ 53.
Repp further discloses that “wired communication may be used between
smart hook 102 and other elements of system 101.” Id.
Repp discloses that smart hook 102 includes battery compartment 302
for receiving batteries that serve as a power source for smart hook control
system 310. Repp ¶ 43. Repp discloses that alternatively, the “smart-hook
may be powered through energy harvesting upon de[s]cent and retraction
(upward or downward motion) and/or to power the control system via
transfer of electrical power via a conductive wire along cable 104.” Repp ¶
44.
The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Repp indicating that
Repp’s cable 104 is a “single conductor” as we have interpreted this term
that forms an open circuit between Repp’s load cell 306 (sensor) and a
receiving module of Repp’s hoist system 101 for transmission of power
and/or data from load cell 306 (sensor) to the receiving module, without a
second conductor that completes a closed circuit between load cell 306
(sensor) and the receiving module. Nonetheless, the Examiner asserts in the
Answer that “Repp discloses a single cable having a single conductor since
the single cable 104 constitutes one single conductor and is constructed for
carrying electric current from one structure (hook) 102 to another (system)
101.” Ans. 3–4. This statement, however, constitutes nothing more than an
unsupported conclusion that because Repp’s cable 104 is a single cable that
carries electric current from one structure to another, cable 104 is necessarily
a single conductor. This statement thus amounts to an unsupported
allegation that all single cables are single conductors. Such an assertion
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

8
unsupported by any objective evidence, however, does not constitute a
sufficient factual basis for establishing anticipation. In fact, we note that
Wiggins, applied as a prior art reference in the rejection of claims 5 and 6
under § 103, discloses a single cable that includes three conductors.
Wiggins col. 2, ll. 35–42; col. 3, ll. 21–32; Fig. 2) (describing cable 20
including conductor 22 and first 26 and second 30 electrical shields, and
disclosing sending data and charging current over conductor 22 (first
conductor) and shield 26 (second conductor) while providing a return link to
a power supply by shield 30 (third conductor)).
Nonetheless, even if Repp’s cable 104 is a single conductor as the
Examiner asserts, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Repp of
single wired-transmission along cable 104 from load cell 306 (sensor) to a
receiving module of hoist system 101, as required by claims 1 and 16, or of
transmitting data along cable 104, as required by claim 17. Rather, as
discussed above, Repp discloses the use of antennas 312, 611 to wirelessly
communicate data between smart hook 102—such as load data measured by
load cell 306 (sensor) and/or control system 310—and other systems. And
although Repp also discloses that “wired communication may be used
between smart hook 102 and other elements of system 101,” the Examiner
does not identify any disclosure in Repp indicating that such wired
communication occurs along cable 104.
And as also discussed above, Repp discloses powering smart hook
control system 310 with batteries or “via transfer of electrical power via a
conductive wire along cable 104.” As Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 11), one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand Repp’s disclosure of a
conductive wire along cable 104 to indicate that the conductive wire is
Appeal 2020-001270
Application 15/402,686

9
separate and distinct from cable 104, and is disposed next to cable 104,
rather than being one and the same as cable 104. One of ordinary skill in the
art, therefore, would understand Repp to disclose transfer of electrical power
through a conductive wire that is separate from cable 104.
The Examiner, therefore, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
establish that Repp discloses single wired-transmission along cable 104 from
load cell 306 (sensor) to a receiving module of hoist system 101, as required
by claims 1 and 16, or discloses transmitting data along cable 104, as
required by claim 17.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
16, and 17, and claims 2–4, 7–11, 14, and 15, which each depend from either
claim 1, 16, or 17, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Repp. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, because the Examiner does not rely on the additional prior
art references applied in these rejections for any disclosure that remedies the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s reliance on Repp.
CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–11,
14–17
102(a)(1) Repp 1–4, 7–11,
14–17
5, 6 103 Repp,
Wiggins
5, 6
12, 13 103 Repp,
Kettenbach
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–17
REVERSED