Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201713535919 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017) 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. 14/465,751 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 Claims 40 and 41 are withdrawn.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation