AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 20212020000730 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/280,992 05/19/2014 ADAM WOODWORTH 331350-00130 2505 144767 7590 03/01/2021 Aurora Flight Sciences / McAndrews, Held & Malloy 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER WANG, MICHAEL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2021 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): Mehra.Ifica@aurora.aero mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM WOODWORTH and JAMES PEVERILL Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, a subsidiary of The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to systems and methods for increasing the safety and flight space of tethered unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”). Spec. ¶ 2. Of the pending claims, claims 1, 3, and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 1. A safety method for use with a tethered aerial vehicle having a tether with a tether power cable, the safety method comprising the steps of: transmitting electrical power from a ground station to the tethered aerial vehicle through the tether power cable; transmitting from the ground station to the tethered aerial vehicle a test electrical signal having a predetermined characteristic, wherein the tethered aerial vehicle generates a tether line condition electrical signal in response to the test electrical signal and communicates the tether line condition electrical signal via the tether; listening, with a listening device disposed at the ground station, for the tether line condition electrical signal from the tethered aerial vehicle to determine whether the tether line condition electrical signal is at a predetermined acceptable level, wherein the predetermined acceptable level is a function of the test electrical signal; if the tether line condition electrical signal is determined to be at the predetermined acceptable level, retransmit the test electrical signal and listen for the tether line condition electrical signal; if the tether line condition electrical signal is determined to be below the predetermined acceptable level or is not received at the ground station, determine whether the tether is severed, wherein the tether is determined to be severed when the tether line condition electrical signal is not received; if the tether is determined to be not severed, instruct the tethered aerial vehicle to (i) land at the ground station and (ii) reset the listening device; Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 3 if the listening device resets, retransmit the test electrical signal and listen for the tether line condition electrical signal; if the listening device does not reset, continue to land the tethered aerial vehicle at the ground station; if the tether is determined to be severed, (i) cut the electrical power to the tether power cable at the ground station, (ii) initiate a safe-fall mode at the tethered aerial vehicle, and (iii) reset the listening device at the ground station; if the listening device resets, retransmit the test electrical signal and listen for the tether line condition electrical signal; if the listening device does not reset, continue to cut the electrical power to the tether power cable and continue in the safe-fall mode. Appeal Br. A1–A2 (Claims App.) (emphases added). EVIDENCE OF RECORD EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 13–15, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent and Cornwell. Final Act. 4–9, 19–21. Claims 3–9, 11, 12, 17–20, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent, Cornwell, and Grieser. Id. at 9–14, 15–19. 2 The Final Action indicates the Examiner rejected claims 3, 11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, however, the Examiner later withdrew the rejection in an Advisory Action dated Sept. 21, 2017. Name Reference Date Cornwell US 4,389,694 June 21, 1983 Grieser US 6,471,160 B2 Oct. 29, 2002 Burnham US 7,905,463 B2 Mar. 15, 2011 Blumer US 8,109,711 B2 Feb. 7, 2012 Abrahamson US 2010/0318475 A1 Dec. 16, 2010 Nugent WO 2013/052178 A2 Apr. 11, 2013 Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 4 Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent, Grieser, and Burnham. Id. at 14–15. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent, Cornwell, and Blumer. Id. at 21–22. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent, Cornwell, and Abrahamson. Id. at 22–23. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nugent, Cornwell, Grieser, and Abrahamson. Id. at 23. ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Nugent as a primary reference to reject each of the pending claims. See Final Act. 4–23. In doing so, the Examiner finds that Nugent discloses the use of a tether power cable for transmitting electrical power from a ground station to an unmanned aerial vehicle. Id. at 4–5. In particular, the Examiner cites paragraphs 81 and 82 of Nugent as disclosing the claim limitations reciting, first, that the tethered aerial vehicle “land at the ground station” if the tether is determined to be “not severed,” and, second, that the tethered aerial vehicle initiate a “safe-fall mode” if the tether is determined to be “severed.” Final Act. 5, 11 (“the safety system may respond to an unsafe condition by causing the aerial platform 120 to return to the base unit and land immediately”). Acknowledging that Nugent does not disclose transmitting “a test electrical signal” through the tether, as recited in independent claim 1, or “a tether line condition electrical signal” through the tether, as recited in independent claims 3 and 11, the Examiner nonetheless finds that Cornwell teaches transmitting a “monitoring signal” through an electrical cable for detecting a “fault condition” within the cable and preventing “hazards from Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 5 shock” at a remotely connected machine. Id. at 6 (citing Cornwell 4:57–66). As such, the Examiner concludes that a skilled artisan would have deemed it obvious “to modify Nugent using the teachings of Cornwell in order . . . to detect damage in the tether to prevent hazards from shock.” Id. The Examiner also acknowledges that neither Nugent nor Cornwell discloses “a descent stabilization device” in the safe-fall mode, as recited by independent claims 3 and 11, but finds that Grieser teaches such a device in the form of a parachute, and that it would have been obvious to modify Nugent to include a parachute “in order to further protect the aircraft and its surroundings during descent and landing.” Id. at 12, 17 (citing Grieser 3:63–65). We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive. At the outset, we cannot overlook the resemblance between Appellant’s purported invention and Nugent’s tethered aerial vehicle, as illustrated below in the side-by-side comparison of Nugent’s Figure 8A (reproduced below left) and Appellant’s Figure 4b (reproduced below right). Nugent Fig. 8A Appellant’s Fig. 4b Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 6 Each of the above figures depicts a pair of UAVs tethered in series to a ground station, with a higher-altitude UAV being tethered to a lower- altitude UAV, which, in turn, is tethered to the ground station. Noting that each of the Examiner’s rejections “relies upon Nugent as a primary reference,” Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to establish that Nugent constitutes prior art.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–5, 9–10.3 Appellant also argues that “the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on the cited combination of references, which fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of independent claims 1, 3, and 11.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5–9. We address each of Appellant’s arguments below. A. Whether Nugent Qualifies as Prior Art We begin by noting that Appellant’s present application is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/413,696, filed March 7, 2012. Nugent, on which the Examiner relies as a primary reference, has a publication date of April 11, 2013, and a filing date of June 9, 2012, both of which fall after the March 7, 2012 filing date of the present application. But Nugent is based on U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/495,174 (“Nugent Provisional” or “Nugent Prov.”), filed June 9, 2011, which is before the filing date of the present application. So the issue becomes whether Nugent is effectively entitled to the date of its earlier provisional application. If not, Nugent does not qualify as prior art. “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional 3 Although the Reply Brief is paginated A-1 through A-10, we omit the “A” prefix when citing pages of the Reply Brief. Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 7 application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 1.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). Although Nugent is not a patent but rather a published application, the holding in Dynamic Drinkware applies nonetheless to both issued patents and published applications. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s finding of nonobviousness where “Appellants . . . did not proffer any evidence showing that the provisional applications contained representative species or common structural elements sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement for the [subject matter] claimed in the PCT applications.”). Thus, while the Nugent Provisional may antedate the present application, Nugent itself constitutes prior art only if: (1) the subject matter of Nugent relied upon in the Examiner’s rejection is shown to be properly supported by the Nugent Provisional in accordance with § 112, first paragraph; and (2) at least one claim in Nugent is adequately supported by the Nugent Provisional in compliance with § 112, first paragraph. 1. Whether the Nugent Provisional provides adequate written description support for the Examiner’s reliance on Nugent’s disclosure In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner cites paragraph 81 of Nugent as disclosing the claim limitation reciting that the tethered aerial vehicle “land at the ground station” if the tether is determined to be “not severed.” Final Act. 5, 11 (“the safety system may respond to an unsafe condition by causing the aerial platform 120 to return to the base unit and land immediately”). The Examiner similarly cites paragraph 81 of Nugent Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 8 as disclosing the claim limitation reciting that the tethered vehicle initiate a “safe-fall mode” if the tether is determined to be “severed.” Id. Appellant responds that the Nugent Provisional fails to provide adequate written description support for either of the above aspects of Nugent relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. See Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–5. According to Appellant, although the Nugent Provisional indisputably discloses that the aerial vehicle lands safely in the event of a power failure, the Nugent Provisional nonetheless fails to provide support for the disclosure in Nugent that the aerial vehicle “return to the base unit and land immediately.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2–3. Similarly, Appellant contends that the Nugent Provisional fails to provide support for “a safe-fall mode,” despite its disclosure in Nugent. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4–5. Aside from questioning the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure of those two aspects of Nugent, Appellant does not further dispute that the Nugent Provisional provides support for the other aspects of Nugent relied upon by the Examiner, including its disclosure of transmitting optical power via a tether from a ground station to an aerial vehicle for propelling the vehicle. See Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–5. To begin, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Nugent Provisional lacks support for Nugent’s disclosure of causing the aerial platform “to return to the base unit and land immediately.” See Appeal Br. 9 (citing Nugent Prov., at 7–8). In particular, like the Examiner, we note the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure that “[i]n the case of failure, the energy storage elements may provide sufficient energy to allow the platform [i.e., the aerial vehicle] to descend and land safely. Ans. 3 (citing Nugent Prov., at 6, ¶ 2 (emphasis added)). As for where the vehicle lands, the Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 9 Examiner points to the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure that the tether is deployed “via a winch, a drum or reel” for the purpose of “reducing the amount to which the cable might wander or move horizontally, . . . and/or providing data for use in controlling the position, attitude and height of the aerial platform.” Ans. 3 (citing Nugent Prov., at 4, ¶¶ 7, 11). From those disclosures, the Examiner finds that the cable’s attachment to the tensioning winch, drum, or reel “would inherently cause the cable to retract as the platform descen[d]s and lands, which would automatically pull the platform toward the ground station, . . . [and] would therefore inherently land at the ground station to which the tether is attached.” Id. We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding. Importantly, the Examiner notes the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure that the tether cable is used for “providing data for use in controlling the position” of the tethered aerial vehicle. Ans. 3 (quoting Nugent Prov., at 4, ¶ 11) (emphasis added). That disclosure of transmitting navigational data to the aerial vehicle via the tether amounts to instructing the tethered vehicle as to its flight route, which necessarily would include a landing spot, be it at the ground station or elsewhere. And so long as the aerial vehicle is attached to the ground station via the tether, the most logical landing spot would be the location from whence it was deployed, rather than some random location. Indeed, as the Examiner explained, a skilled artisan reasonably would have understood the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure of a winch or reel for the tether as including the capability to reel the aerial vehicle back in to the ground station as the vehicle descends. See Ans. 3. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments to the contrary, as they focus on “other embodiments” in the Nugent Provisional not relied upon by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 2 Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 10 (focusing on Nugent Provisional’s “other embodiments” that do not include a deployment mechanism). Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Nugent Provisional fails to provide support for a “safe-fall mode” in the event the tether cable loses power. Pointing to the Specification, Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would understand that the “safe-fall mode” means the aerial vehicle “fall[s] to the ground safely without requiring an onboard power supply.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant contrasts that meaning of a “safe-fall mode” with the Nugent Provisional’s description of an onboard power supply for permitting the aerial vehicle to land safely in the event of a power failure, and from there, argues that the Nugent Provisional’s description “is irreconcilable with the safe-fall mode as claimed.” Id. (quoting Nugent Prov., at 6). We disagree for the simple reason that Appellant applies an unduly narrow meaning to the term “safe-fall mode.” At the outset, we note that none of the independent claims include the negative limitation—“without requiring an onboard power supply”—that Appellant improperly attempts to inject from the Specification into the claims. Indeed, the Specification belies Appellant’s overly narrow definition by expressly disclosing that the “safe- fall [mode] could comprise an onboard power storage device” in the event of a power failure. Spec. ¶ 92. Thus, consistent with the Specification, “safe- fall mode” encompasses a method of landing the aerial vehicle safely that either requires an onboard power supply (e.g., actuating a battery) or does not require an onboard power supply (e.g., deploying a parachute). See Spec. ¶¶ 89–93. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the Nugent Provisional’s description of using “energy storage elements” to land the Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 11 vehicle safely in the event of a power failure constitutes a safe-fall mode for the vehicle. See Ans. 3–4. Because Appellant does not further fault the Nugent Provisional as failing to provide support for any other aspect of Nugent relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims, we turn now to the additional requirement under Dynamic Drinkware that at least one claim in Nugent find support in the Nugent Provisional. 2. Whether the Nugent Provisional provides written description support for at least one claim of Nugent Appellant argues that, even if the two disputed features of Nugent find support in the Nugent Provisional, the Examiner nonetheless fails to address the additional requirement that at least one claim of Nugent also finds support in the Nugent Provisional. See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 9–10 (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378). We are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to meet his burden with respect to this additional requirement. The Examiner cites specific pages and paragraphs of the Nugent Provisional, the totality of which provides clear and indisputable support for at least claim 1 of Nugent. See Ans. 3–4. More specifically, Nugent’s claim 1 recites a system comprising five basic elements— (1) “an optical transmission element;” (2) “an optical power source coupled to an end of the optical transmission element . . . ;” (3) “an aerial platform;” (4) “an optical power receiver attached to the aerial platform and . . . operable to receive optical power and convert at least a portion of the optical power into a second form of power;” and Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 12 (5) “a propulsion element operable . . . to propel the aerial platform.” Nugent, at 24 (claim 1). Throughout their exchange, the Examiner and Appellant demonstrate an understanding of the Nugent Provisional as disclosing each of those five basic elements. For instance, both the Examiner and Appellant reference “page 6, paragraph 2 of the Nugent Provisional,” which indisputably discloses an “aerial platform” equipped with a “receiver” for receiving “power from the cable” (i.e., tether), which in turn is attached to “the transmitter” on the ground. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Ans. 3–4. As for the element requiring “a second form of power,” both the Examiner and Appellant note the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure that “[i]n other possible embodiments, at least some of the transmitted power may be in the form of high voltage electricity.” See Ans. 4 (citing Nugent Prov. at 2 ¶ 5); Reply Br. 5–6 (acknowledging the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure that “the cable could include one or more electrical conductors, and power could be delivered as electrical current flow”). Indeed, the Examiner expressly discusses the Nugent Provisional’s disclosure of transmitting both optical and electrical power to the aerial platform as meeting “claim 15 of Nugent,” which ultimately depends from Nugent’s claim 1. And as plainly clear from the face of the Nugent Provisional, it is beyond dispute that the aerial vehicle includes a propulsion element. That both the Examiner and Appellant understood the Nugent Provisional as disclosing those basic elements of a tethered UAV amounts to a showing by the Examiner that the Nugent Provisional provides adequate support for at least claim 1 of Nugent, if not also claim 15. Once it was clear from the Examiner’s analysis that the Nugent Provisional satisfied at least Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 13 claim 1 of Nugent, which is its broadest claim, the burden appropriately shifted to Appellant to come forward with evidence and argument supporting a contrary position, which, at a minimum, entails identifying what, if any, feature of Nugent’s broad claim was missing from the Nugent Provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80 (addressing the “shifting burdens” in establishing prior art status of an asserted reference). Appellant fails to do anything of the sort, arguing simply that “the Examiner has failed to even address this requirement, let alone satisfy it.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 9–10 (same). That the Examiner may not have labeled his analysis in terms of the Dynamic Drinkware framework does not mean he did not satisfy its requirements. As discussed above, the Examiner satisfied his initial burden of production by means of his detailed discussion of the Nugent Provisional. When that burden shifted to Appellant, however, it fell short. In sum, we determine that Appellant fails to meet its burden of producing evidence and/or argument that the Nugent Provisional lacks at least one of the five basic elements of Nugent’s broad claim 1. And because we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis of the Nugent Provisional as providing adequate support not only for the disputed features of Nugent relied on by the Examiner but also the broadest claim of Nugent, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nugent qualifies as prior art in rejecting the claims. B. Whether the Claimed Invention Would Have Been Obvious Over the Nugent-based Rejections Appellant raises essentially three arguments in dispute of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the claims. Appeal Br. 12. In doing Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 14 so, Appellant argues independent claims 1, 3, and 11 together and does not argue any of the dependent claims separately. Id. at 12–19. The Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over Nugent and Cornwell, and claims 3 and 11 as obvious over Nugent, Cornwell, and Grieser. See Final Act. 4, 9, 15. In disputing the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, Appellant argues that Nugent fails to disclose “transmitting electrical power from a ground station to the tethered aerial vehicle through the tether power cable,” as required by independent claims 1, 3, and 11. Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5–6 (making essentially same argument). According to Appellant, Nugent “teaches transmission of light through optical fiber” and “is incapable of conducting electrical power because it is not fabricated from an electrically-conductive material.” Appeal Br. 13–14 (citing Nugent, Abstract, Figs. 6A, 6B). In that same vein, Appellant argues that “Nugent teaches away the disclosures of Cornwell, which relates to an electrical cable monitoring system (a feature that is forbidden by Nugent).” Id. at 14–15. We disagree with Appellant’s assertions. Although Nugent discloses that “[t]ransmitting the power in the form of light is preferable in many cases to transmitting electric power, because electrical conductors are generally heavier than optical fibers, and are hazardous in the presence of lightning or a high-voltage power line,” nowhere does Nugent discourage the use of electrical conductors or otherwise suggest that they cannot be used in place of optical fiber. Nugent ¶ 8. Rather, Nugent expressly contemplates that the tether may comprise various components “for transmitting either signals or power . . . includ[ing] metallic wires 332, coaxial cables 334, and optical fibers 310.” Id. ¶ 49 (emphasis added), Fig. 3C. Elsewhere, Nugent Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 15 acknowledges that the use of “a tether containing electrical conductors” is a well-known form of powering UAVs and cites several examples. Id. ¶ 4. Those disclosures clearly support the Examiner’s finding that Nugent discloses transmitting electrical power through a tether comprising an electrical conductor. That Nugent discusses the benefits of using one form of power transmission (fiber-optic tethers) over another form of power transmission (electrical-conductor tethers) does not mean that a skilled artisan would have been dissuaded from using an electrical-conductor altogether in Nugent’s tether, especially given Nugent’s express recognition that electrical-conductor tethers are well-known and may be used in certain circumstances (i.e., where lightning and power lines do not present a safety hazard). See id. ¶¶ 4, 49, Fig. 3C. Because Appellant ignores Nugent’s express teachings, we are not the least bit persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Nugent fails to disclose, or otherwise teaches away from, transmitting electrical power to the tethered aerial vehicle, as called for by claims 1, 3, and 11. See Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant’s next argument faults the Examiner for failing to demonstrate that Nugent and Cornwell are “analogous prior art.” Appeal Br. 17. According to Appellant, the Examiner has failed to indicate why a skilled artisan looking to solve a problem with light-driven aerial vehicles would look to monitoring systems for insuring the integrity of electrical cables as are used to energize equipment, e.g., mining equipment especially when Nugent would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from using electrical conducting tethers. Id.; see also Reply Br. 7–8 (making essentially same argument). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner articulated sufficient reasoning with factual underpinning for why a skilled artisan would have Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 16 looked to Cornwell’s cable monitoring system as a safety system in Nugent’s tether, i.e., to maintain the integrity of the tether, to detect damage in the tether, and, ultimately, to prevent hazardous shocks in the event of a severed tether. See Final Act. 6 (quoting Cornwell, 4:57–66; Nugent ¶ 85). Indeed, Nugent itself provides “a safety system . . . to detect one or more unsafe conditions,” which “may include a hardware fault, such as a break in the tether.” Nugent ¶¶ 81–82. Explaining further, Nugent describes that the safety system “may employ technologies known in the art,” such as “power measurements, to detect damage . . . in the tether.” Id. ¶ 85. Cornwell teaches one such safety system, recognizing expressly that its cable monitoring system is ideally suited “for insuring the integrity of such cables as are used to energize equipment . . . employed in remote and/or dangerous locations,” which is exactly the environment in which Nugent’s remotely- powered aerial vehicle operates. Cornwell, 1:6–10; see also id. at 1:37–39 (“To prevent hazards from shock at the mobile machines, the integrity of the ground wire must be maintained.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cornwell is reasonably pertinent to the problem of electrical power transmission to remote vehicles faced by Appellant and that modifying Nugent to use the known safety technology from Cornwell would have been an obvious solution for preventing hazardous shocks from Nugent’s tether. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5. Finally, Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” Appeal Br. 18. But aside from reciting the relevant law of obviousness, Appellant provides no meaningful explanation as to how the Examiner erred in selecting and combining the asserted references. See id. To the extent Appellant is referencing purported Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 17 failures of the Examiner discussed earlier in its brief, we reject Appellant’s assertion for the reasons discussed above.4 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 3, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). And because Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2, 4–10, and 12–27 separately, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those dependent claims for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of the independent claims. 4 Appellant raises a new argument in its Reply Brief faulting the Examiner’s reason for why a skilled artisan would have known to use the parachute of Grieser as a descent stabilization device in Nugent’s aerial vehicle. See Reply Br. 8–9. Absent showing of good cause, we reject this belated argument as improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2017). In any event, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have readily understood that Grieser’s teaching of using a parachute as a descent stabilization device in an aerial vehicle would have been equally applicable to Nugent’s aerial vehicle in order to safely protect it during descent and landing in the event of a power failure. See Final Act. 12. Appeal 2020-000730 Application 14/280,992 18 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13–15, 21, 26 103(a) Nugent, Cornwell 1, 2, 13–15, 21, 26 3–9, 11, 12, 17–20, 25, 27 103(a) Nugent, Cornwell, Grieser 3–9, 11, 12, 17–20, 25, 27 10, 16 103(a) Nugent, Grieser, Burnham 10, 16 22 103(a) Nugent, Grieser, Blumer 22 23 103(a) Nugent, Grieser, Abrahamson 23 24 103(a) Nugent, Cornwell, Abrahamson, Grieser 24 Overall Outcome 1–27 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation