Ex Parte Giazotto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

10592354 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/592,354 09/11/2006 Alessandro Riccardo Britannica Giazotto
24113 7590 10/31/2016
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, PA
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
4800 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100
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.
2733.43WOUS 8611
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,VUQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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 ALESSANDRO RICCARDO BRITANNICO GIAZOTTO
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354 1
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alessandro Riccardo Britannico Giazotto (Appellant) appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 52,
53, 57---61, 65---68, 70-73, 77-81, and 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corio (US 6,402,259 B2, iss. June 11, 2002), Branson
(US 3,702,714, iss. Nov. 14, 1972), and Rado (Zoltan Rado and James C.
Wambold, Aircraft Braking Friction Prediction From Flight Data Recorder
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Airbus UK Limited.
Appeal Br. 2 (filed December 16, 2013).
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
Data, pub. May 2001). 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates "to the braking of an aircraft on the
ground." Spec. 1, 11. 3--4.
The sole independent claim 71 is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. An aircraft braking controller, for use on an aircraft
comprising sensors for providing information relating to a wheel
of the aircraft to the controller, the controller comprising:
i) sensor inputs for receiving information relating to the
wheel of the aircraft from the sensors,
ii) an input for receiving a command for braking, and
iii) a control output for controlling braking provided by a
brake of the wheel,
\~1herein the controller is configured to monitor and record
data from the sensor inputs for the wheel of the aircraft,
including:
a) the reacted torque provided to the wheel by the brake,
b) the frictional torque on the wheel provided by
interaction of the wheel with the ground, and
c) a level of actuation applied to the brake,
wherein the controller is configured to convert the
command for braking into a command for a level of actuation to
be applied to the brake of the wheel on the basis of the monitored
and recorded data, and wherein the controller is configured to
determine, using data from the sensor inputs and a threshold
value of frictional torque provided by the ground wheel
2 The rejection of claims 52, 53, 57-61, 65---68, 70-73, 77-81, and 100
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the
Examiner. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
interaction, whether the wheel is in a brake torque limited region
or in a region of braking limited by the friction between the wheel
and the ground, and to control the braking in accordance with the
determination, wherein the controller is configured to make the
said determination on the basis of the monitored and recorded
data listed i) to iii).
ANALYSIS
Claim 71
The Examiner concludes a combination of the teachings of Corio,
Branson, and Rado renders claim 71 unpatentable. Final Act. 3-5.
Appellant asserts the combination, as explained by the Examiner, does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 10-16. Specifically,
Appellant argues the combination fails to disclose a controller that provides
braking controls based on a real time determination, using data from the
sensor inputs and a threshold value of frictional torque provided by the
ground wheel interaction, whether the wheel is in a brake torque limited
region or in a region of braking limited by the friction between the wheel
and the ground, as required by claim 71. Id. at 10-13. Appellant asserts
further,
[ w ]hile the Examiner has presented his opinion as to where the
limitations of independent claim 71 are to be found in the prior
art, the Examiner has provided no reasoning or analysis that
represents a genuine consideration of whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the references in a way to
achieve the presently claimed invention even if the references did
disclose or suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Corio and Branson to
disclose a configurable controller with the claimed structural elements (i.e,
3
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
sensor inputs, braking command input, and braking control output), which
monitors data for the recited sensor inputs (i.e., reacted torque, frictional
torque, and level of actuation) and is configured, based on the monitored
data, to convert the command for braking into a command for a level of
actuation to be applied to the brake of the wheel. Final Act. 3--4. Appellant
notably does not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding what
Corio and Branson teach, nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner's
reasoning for why skilled artisans would have known to combine the
teachings of Corio and Branson.
The Examiner does not rely on Corio or Branson, however, to disclose
configuring a controller to record the data monitored or convert the
command for braking into a command for a level of actuation to be applied
to the brake of the wheel in accordance with a determination of whether the
wheel is in a brake torque limited region or in a region of braking limited by
the friction between the wheel and the ground, using data from the sensor
inputs and a threshold value of frictional torque provided by the ground
wheel interaction. Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Rado to show a skilled
artisan knew to record the monitored data and determine, using data from the
sensor inputs and a threshold value of frictional torque provided by the
ground wheel interaction, whether the wheel is in a brake torque limited
region or in a region of braking limited by the friction between the wheel
and the ground. Id. at 5 (citing Rado pp. 11-12). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to modify the controller taught by the combined
teachings of Corio and Branson to include the teachings of Rado because the
combination would have predictably resulted in a controller with more
information about "how the wheel is limited with regard to interacting
4
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
forces" and, therefore, "a more versatile and robust brake system, in which
greater control can be executed upon making such a determination." Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Rado is misplaced
because "[ t ]here is no disclosure in Rado of real time gathering and
application of data to aircraft braking when the aircraft is on landing roll nor
is there any disclosure . . . by Rado of a controller that is programmed to
perform these functions." Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, Rado is
directed to a process for modeling aircraft braking friction using previously
recorded flight data, which can be used to approximate a pre-programmed
threshold to predict unsafe conditions. Id.at 10-11.
In response, the Examiner correctly points out "Corio already
discloses a controller (40, 44) that generally performs real time gathering
and application of data to aircraft braking (see column 4, lines 1-7 and
column 5, line 66-column 6, line 6 of Corio)." Ans. 2. "[T]he Examiner
primarily relies on Rado merely as a general teaching of making a
determination as to whether a wheel is in a brake torque limited region or in
a friction limited region (see pages 11-14 of Rado)." Id. "The Examiner
maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the controller of Corio to include said determination and
subsequently control braking in accordance with said determination." Id. at
2-3.
Appellant has not persuasively shown an error with the Examiner's
obviousness determination. Appellant asserts the Examiner first identifies
Corio in the Answer as disclosing a controller that performs real time
gathering and application of data to control aircraft braking. Reply Br. 6-7.
Furthermore, according to Appellant, Corio "has no relation to collecting
5
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
data from the brakes or wheels to inform the application of braking function
as does the presently claimed invention." Id. at 7.
In the Final Office Action, however, the Examiner finds Corio
discloses a controller "configured to convert the command for braking into a
command for a level of actuation to be applied to the brake of the wheel on
the basis of the monitored data." Final Act. 3 (citing Corio col. 4, 11. 1-7 and
col. 5, 1. 66-col. 6, 1. 6). The Examiner further explains, in the Response to
Argument, that Rado generally teaches "the capability of determining
whether a wheel is in a brake torque limited region or in a friction limited
region" and that, "[ w ]hen such a determination is incorporated into the
controller of Corio, ... the controller of Corio would be capable of
controlling the braking in accordance with the determination." Id. at 6.
At column 4, lines 1-7, Corio teaches "each brake 34 has an
associated torque sensor and wheel speed sensor" that provide outputs "to
the respective EMACs3 44 via cables," which, in tum, are provided to the
BSCUs4 "as feedback signals to carry out the brake control and antiskid
processing/unctions." (emphasis added). At column 5, line 66, to column
6, line 6, Corio similarly teaches "[t]he EMACs 44 are configured to
condition the signals and provide the measured wheel speed and torque to
the BSCUs 40," which "in tum use such information in a conventional
manner/or carrying out brake control and antiskid processing." (emphasis
3 "EMACs" refers to a "electromechanical actuator controller," which
"which convert brake clamp force commands from the BSCUs 40 to servo
motor control signals ... [to] provide actuator braking forces." Corio col. 3,
11. 49-56.
4 "BSCU" refers to a "digital brake system control unit," which "carry out
the brake control and antiskid processing functions." Corio col. 3, 11. 42--48.
6
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
added). Additionally, we note Corio also describes the BSCUs as receiving
braking command inputs from transducers 46 and as "process[ing] the
signals based on the ... brake control and antiskid algorithms to produce a
brake command signal which is provided to the EMACs." Corio col. 5, 11.
10-18. We, therefore, disagree with Appellant's characterization ofboth the
Examiner's rejection and the teachings of Corio.
We furthermore disagree with the conclusion Appellant draws from
the fact that Rado uses historical flight recorder data. Appeal Br. 10.
Contrary to Appellant's assertion that Rado is unrelated to performing real
time evaluations of wheel friction conditions (id.), Rado states,
The study has shown that data of the flight data recorder can be
used for the real time calculation of the aircraft wheel braking
friction. The researched and developed model can be regarded
as the proof of concept for the calculation of the braking friction
coefficient for aircraft during landing.
Rado 14 (emphasis added). In addition, Rado states, "[t]he friction and
torque limited cases can be monitored and in real-time separated by the
developed model and procedures." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, although
the Examiner properly relies on Corio to teach that a skilled artisan knew to
use a controller to perform real time gathering and application of data to
aircraft breaking control, Rado certainly provides evidence that a skilled
artisan knew the detection of friction and torque limited conditions was
adaptable to providing real-time information relevant to the control and
operation of the aircraft.
Appellant also asserts that "the cited prior art structure must be
capable of performing the function without further programing." Appeal Br.
13 (citing Ex parte Wheat, Appeal 2010-008139). Appellant mistakenly
relies on our previous Wheat decision to support this position. The Wheat
7
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
decision involved an issue of whether the disclosed controller, without
modification, was inherently capable of performing the recited function. Ex
parte Wheat, 2012 WL 2356578, at *2 (PTAB 2012). The Board properly
concluded that the "capable of' test in the context of inherency requires the
prior art structure, as disclosed and without modification, to be able to
perform the function recited in the claim. Id. The Board concluded the
Examiner acted improperly because the prior art controller would require
further programming, which would amount to changing the prior art
controller structure to something different than what was disclosed and, as
such, the prior art failed to support an anticipation rejection based on
inherency. Id. at 3.
The Examiner in this case is not relying on inherency. Instead, the
Examiner makes an obviousness rejection and, as such, relies on modifYing
the Corio controller in view of the teachings of Branson and Rado to
disclose the controller claim 71 recites. The Examiner finds, "a certain level
of further programming or reprogramming [of the Corio controller, as
modified by Branson and Rado] would be necessitated [to perform the
recited functions] and would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art."
Final Act. 7. Appellant provides no evidence or persuasive technical
reasoning rebutting this finding or demonstrating it was made in error. We
note further neither the prior art of record, nor Appellant's Specification,
disclose any particular programming for configuring a controller to perform
the described functions, which supports the Examiner's position regarding
the level of skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan in this case.
Finally, we disagree with Appellant's conclusory allegations that the
Examiner wholly fails to provide a reason a skilled artisan would have
8
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
combined Rado with Corio and Branson. The Examiner expressly sets forth
the rationale as follows:
[a ]t the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft braking
controller as taught by the combined teachings of Corio and
Branson to record the data monitored and determine, using the
data and a threshold value of frictional torque provided by the
ground wheel interaction, whether the wheel is in a brake torque
limited region or in a region of braking limited by the friction
between the wheel and the ground as taught by Rado. The
rationale for doing so would have been to provide the predictable
result of a more versatile and robust brake system, in which
greater control can be executed upon making such a
determination. The Examiner also submits that doing so would
provide the predictable result of knowing how the wheel is
limited with regard to interacting forces.
Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated
any flaws with the above reasoning, or its rational underpinning, nor do we
find any. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 71 as
unpatentable over Corio, Branson, and Rado.
Claim 52, 53, 57-61, 65-68, 70, 72, 73, 77-81, and 100
For dependent claims 52, 53, 57---61, 65---68, 70, 72, 73, 77-81, and
100, the Examiner summarily states, "[ r ]egarding the dependent claims, the
Examiner submits that the combination of Corio, Branson, and Rado would
result in structure at least capable of meeting the limitations of the claims, as
broadly recited." Final Act. 5---6. Appellant asserts this is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the dependent claims.
"The examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting aprimafacie case ofunpatentability." In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). That burden is satisfied by
9
Appeal2014-005895
Application 10/592,354
"adequately explaining the shortcomings [the Examiner] perceives so that
the applicant is properly notified and able to respond." In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
short treatment of the dependent claims fails to establish a prima facie case
because it effectively deprives Appellant of notice regarding how the
Examiner is reading the prior art to disclose the recited claim elements, at
least with any reasonable degree of certainty. As a result, the rejection
likewise deprives Appellant from being able to provide a meaningful
response. Therefore, we agree a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established for the dependent claims and, as such, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 52, 53, 57-61, 65-68, 70, 72, 73, 77-81, and 100.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 71 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 52, 53, 57---61, 65---68, 70,
72, 73, 77-81, and 100 is reversed.
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
10