Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13535919 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

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.
14/465,751 08/21/2014 Roderick A. Hyde 0313-004-002-000000 1043
138951 7590 11/01/2017
Advent, LLP/INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
The Advent Building
17838 Burke Street
Suite 200
Omaha, NE 68118
EXAMINER
MALHOTRA, SANJEEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
u spto @ adventip .com
sloma@adventip.com
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODERICK A. HYDE, JORDIN T. KARE, ERIC C.
LEUTHARDT, RICHARD T. LORD, ROBERT W. LORD,
DENNIS J. RIVET, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE,
and LOWELL L. WOOD JR.
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5—11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 27—32,
and 34—39. App. Br. 2. Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as depending from
a rejected base claim, and Claims 2, 4, 12, 15—17, 20, 21, 23—26, and 33 are
canceled. Claims Appx. Claims 40 and 41 are withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Elwha LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
We REVERSE.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to “a wheelchair-assist robot for assisting a
wheelchair user with everyday tasks.” See Abstract.
INVENTION
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Claim 1, the sole pending independent claim, which is reproduced below:
1. A flying wheelchair-assist robot, comprising:
a wheelchair interface component operable to exchange
control information with a wheelchair client device; and
a rotorcraft structure operably coupled to the wheelchair
interface component, the rotorcraft structure including one or
more rotors for generating lift.
Kawabe, et al.,
“Kawabe”
Kanaoka, et al.,
“Kanaoka”
Papanikolopoulos, et
al., “Papanikolopoulos”
Tanaka
References and Rejections
US 2005/0219114 Al
US 2006/0224253 Al
US 2011/0139923 Al
US 2014/0060223 Al
Oct. 6, 2005
Oct. 5, 2006
June 16, 2011
Priority Apr. 16, 2012
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 25, 2016, “App. Br.”); the Reply Brief
(filed December 21, 2016, “Reply. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
November 2, 2016, “Ans.”); the Final Action (mailed December 24, 2015,
“Final Act.”); and the Specification (filed October 23, 2015, “Spec.”) for
their respective details.
2
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
Zhou, et al., “Zhou” US 2014/0254896 A1 Filed May 23, 2014
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kanaoka and Tanaka. Final Act. 4—5.
2. Claims 3, 5—11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Kanaoka, Tanaka, Papanikolopoulos* 3, and
Zhou. Final Act. 5—9.
3. Claims 22, 27—32, and 34—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kanaoka, Tanaka, Papanikolopoulos, Zhou, and
Kawabe. Final Act. 9—11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 5—11, 18, 19, and 22
in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—7.
Claim 1: Obviousness over Kanaoka and Tanaka
The Examiner finds Kanaoka substantially teaches the claimed
invention except Kanaoka fails to teach the claimed “rotorcraft structure”
nor does Kanaoka teach the claimed rotor for generating lift. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds Tanaka teaches a motor comprising a rotor. Id. The
3 The Examiner refers to Papanikolopoulos as “Papa.” See Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
Examiner finds the reference motor teaches the claimed “rotorcraft
structure” and the reference rotor teaches the claimed “one or more rotors
for generating lift.” Id. (“motion to lift the operational object that is the
same as claimed “generating lift”) (citing Tanaka, 1101).
Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to provide evidence that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the reference motor to read
on the claimed rotorcraft structure. App. Br. 11 (arguing “rotorcraft” can
indicate “a rotary-wing aircraft”) (citing Random House, Dictionary.com).
R. 50. We agree with Appellants.
With reference to Figure 4, Appellants describe: “[i]n an embodiment,
the wheelchair-assist robot system 100 includes one or more flying
wheelchair-assist robots 402.” Spec., 20,11. 12—14. Appellants further
describe: “the flying wheelchair-assist robot 402 includes a rotorcraft
structure 404. Id., 11. 17—18. Appellants also describe “the rotorcraft
structure 404 includes one or more rotors 406 for generating lift.” Id., 11.
18-19.
We find no disclosure in Tanaka to a device capable of, or having any
relevance to, flying. Tanaka discloses a rotary-encoder wherein a permanent
magnet is disposed on a side of a rotor of a motor. Tanaka, 1 85. However,
Tanaka provides no disclosure that the reference rotor is capable of
generating lift.
In view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 1,
the only independent claim pending in the application.
4
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
Figure 4 depicts a flying wheelchair-assist robot 402 including a rotorcraft
structure 404 having rotors 406 for generating lift.
Claims 3, 5-11,13,14,18,19,22,27-32, and 34—39: Obviousness over
Kanaoka, Tanaka, Papanikolopoulos, Zhou, and Kawabe
The Examiner does not apply any of Papanikolopoulos, Zhou, or
Kawabe to teach the limitations discussed above. See Final Act 5—11; Ans.
2-12.
Dependent Claims 3, 5—11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 27—32, and 34—39 are
allowable for at least the reason that these claims depend from and include
the elements of allowable independent Claim 1. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071
(Fed. Cir. 1988); Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303
F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed.
5
Appeal 2017-003220
Application 14/465,751
Cir. 1992) (“[Dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims
from which they depend are nonobvious.”).
In view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection
of Claims 3, 5-11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 27-32, and 3A-39.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5—11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 27—32, and
34—39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6