Ex Parte Kusic

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2016

13507084 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

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. 13/507,084 06/04/2012 Tom Kusic 9111 7590 03/30/2016 TOM KUSIC GPO BOX 932 MELBOURNE, VIC., 3001 AUSTRALIA EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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 TOM KUSIC ____________ Appeal 2014-002004 Application 13/507,084 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2014-002004 Application 13/507,084 2 THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to vertical take-off aviation (Spec. 1:12–13). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A vertical take-off aircraft comprising a main body, a propeller, and a means for rotating the propeller, which means for rotating the propeller comprises at least one power plant, and which propeller is above the means for rotating the propeller, with vertical lift able to be achieved by the means for rotating the propeller rotating the propeller, thereby forcing air in a downward direction by means of the propeller, and which means for rotating the propeller and the propeller are connected to the main body of the aircraft by a tilt enabling joint such that the means for rotating the propeller and the propeller are able to be tilted together in a plurality of directions and angles relative to the main body of the aircraft, in a controlled manner. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sudrow (US 3,135,481, iss. June 2, 1964). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2014-002004 Application 13/507,084 3 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because Sudrow fails to disclose the propeller above the means for rotating the propeller (App. Br. 2). The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 2 is improper because Sudrow fails to disclose that the blades of the rotor and blade assembly are above the means for rotating the rotor and blade assembly (App. Br. 3–4). The Appellant argues that in Sudrow that the means to rotate the blades is the drive assembly 20 which extends above the lifting blades 12 and 14 (App. Br. 4). Similar arguments are made in the two separate Reply Briefs that have been filed as well. In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Act. 2, Ans. 3, 4). We agree with the Examiner. Here Sudrow discloses an aircraft with a propeller 12 placed above the means (engine 22) for rotating the propeller 12. In Sudrow the rotating portions of the labeled “drive assembly 20” serve as rotors and are also placed above the engine 22 which is the means for rotating the propeller. Here, in Sudrow the engine 22 serves to rotate the propeller. Sudrow also discloses a tilt-enabling for the propellers. As the cited claim limitations have been shown in Sudrow, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant has presented similar arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. Appeal 2014-002004 Application 13/507,084 4 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 is sustained. AFFIRMED