Ex Parte Tucker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13597717 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/597,717 08/29/2012 Brian E. Tucker 12-040.01 (IP1203219) 1922
106104 7590 12/02/2016
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Legal Department, Mail Stop HQ04415
P.O. Box 482
Fort Worth, TX 76101
EXAMINER
SWARTHOUT, BRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
ipdepartment @ bh. com
sjmyers@bh.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN E. TUCKER
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a long and short range storage and
transmission system on aircraft parts. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A rotorcraft, comprising:
a body;
a power train coupled to the body and comprising a power
source and a drive shaft coupled to the power source;
a hub;
a rotor blade coupled to the hub;
an aircraft part; and
an aircraft part storage system comprising:
a first storage device coupled to the aircraft part and
operable to store and transmit a first set of information
identifying the aircraft part; and
a second storage device coupled to the same aircraft part
and operable to store and transmit a second set of information
about the aircraft part, the second storage device having a larger
storage capacity than the first storage device but a shorter
transmission range than the first storage device.
1 Appellant indicates that Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coop et al. US 2007/0114280 A1 May 24, 2007
Darling et al. US 8,547,230 B1 Oct. 1, 2013
Maruyama EP 1801734A1 June 27,2007
Claire Swedberg, Boeing to Launch RFID Program for Airlines in
February, REID Journal (Boeing) pp.l—3
http://www. rfidjournal. com/articlelview/910 7
Claire Swedberg, Eurocopter Approves RFID System for Its Aircraft,
REID Journal (Eurocopter) pp.1^4
http://www. rfidjournal. com/articlelview/9368
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 6—18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over REID Journal (Eurocopter
Approves REID System for Its Aircraft) in view of Maruyama, Coop, and
Darling. Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 3—5, 19, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFID Journal (Eurocopter) in view of
Maruyama, Coop, Darling, and RFID Journal (Boeing to Launch RFID
Program for Airlines in February). Final Act. 4—6.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends “[t]he Examiner attempts to reconstruct these
claimed features by using Applicants' claims as a blueprint, but these efforts
fail to establish aprima facie case of obviousness.” (App. Br. 10).
3
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
Appellant further contends that the individual differences in the prior art
references “show that the cited art, when taken as a whole, do not teach,
disclose, or suggest providing two different storage devices associated and
coupled to the same aircraft part and storing/transmitting different sets of
information about that same aircraft part.).” (App. Br. 10).
Appellant presents arguments directed to the four references relied
upon by the Examiner in the obviousness rejection, and Appellant
emphasizes the individual differences between each of the four references.
(App. Br. 10-14).
The Examiner maintains:
The references disclose the well-known concepts of using
first and second storage devices with different storage
capabilities and different transmission ranges for use with
articles and parts, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it advantageous to use such elements in a part storage
system as disclosed by Eurocopter, for the reasons presented in
the Final rejection, namely capability to continually access tag
data even when short range reader was out of range, capability to
store different amounts of data, and capability to control power
savings depending on the type of storage device used.
The combination of these known storage/tag features
would have yielded the predictable results as stated above, when
used in an aircraft part storage system, as opposed to any other
type of part/article tag storage system, namely, allowing a user
remote from the part/tag to obtain data pertaining to the part/tag.
(Ans. 6). The Examiner generally relies upon the teachings of the
Eurocopter reference to teach or suggest the use of RFID tags for monitoring
a rotocraft aircraft parts. (Final Act. 2). While the Eurocopter reference
discloses the individual use of RFID tags to individual parts, the Maruyama
reference was relied upon to teach or suggest the well-known use of the two
4
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
memories or storage devices storing ID and various information and to a
different transmission ranges with in an individual RFID tag. (Final Act. 2,
Ans. 4 (citing Maruyama Fig. 1, | 5)). We further find the Maruyama
reference in paragraph 8 discloses the problem to be solved by the invention
(“a single RFID tag includes two types of RFID tag sections, and a long
range RFID tag section is necessary.”)
While the Examiner generally cites to the background of the
Maruyama reference, we find that the general teachings of Maruyama
evidence the well-known use of two memories in specific embodiments to
solve the problem identified in paragraph 8, which uses two separate tag
sections with two memories. The Maruyama reference discloses the use of
one memory for the identification tag section and one memory for the
information management tag section (see figures 9 and 10).
The Examiner furthers explains the Maruyama reference in the
response to arguments (Ans. 4, 5, 6). The Examiner concludes:
The references disclose the well-known concepts of using
first and second storage devices with different storage
capabilities and different transmission ranges for use with
articles and parts, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it advantageous to use such elements in a part storage
system as disclosed by Eurocopter, for the reasons presented in
the Final rejection, namely capability to continually access tag
data even when short range reader was out of range, capability to
store different amounts of data, and capability to control power
savings depending on the type of storage device used.
The combination of these known storage/tag features
would have yielded the predictable results as stated above, when
used in an aircraft part storage system, as opposed to any other
type of part/article tag storage system, namely, allowing a user
remote from the part/tag to obtain data pertaining to the part/tag.
5
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
Appellant contends that Maruyama teaches the transmission of the
same information from two memories for the sole purpose of determining
tag location. (Reply Br. 4). We find Appellant’s position is based upon a
too narrow interpretation of the teachings of the Maruyama reference, one
based solely upon the background discussion rather than the two
embodiments disclosed in the remainder of the publication disclosure.
Moreover, Maruyama teaches the determination of location and reading of
stored data in the information management tag section as two separate
functions. (Maruyama 81—89).
Appellant further contends that the two memories for other than
location determination would be inoperable. Id. at 5. We disagree with
Appellant and find that the complete disclosure of the Maruyama reference
evidences the use of two memories for different types of data. (See
Maruyama Tflf 7, 11 initial discussions of: 1) article identification tag section
and 2) article information management tag section.)
Moreover, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rather, the test for obviousness is
whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have
suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, the
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
6
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
With respect to Appellant’s arguments regarding the Coop reference
and the two separate capacities of the two memories (App. Br. 17), we agree
with the Examiner that Coop teaches the use of different capacities of
memory for different types of data. (Ans. 5). Additionally, we find the
Maruyama reference teaches the use of two separate memories where the
two memories store different types and quantities of data and additionally
where one memory is reclaimed/reused as a cost savings. (Maruyama 15,
95, 99, 111, 116). Consequently, Appellant’s general argument does not
show error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of obviousness.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that the Maruyama reference
teaches away from the proposed, combination and that the Examiner
attempts to replace the actual teachings of the Maruyama reference with a
fantasy version of the reference (App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 8—9), the
Examiner finds that the references disclose the well-known concepts of
using first and second storage devices with different storage capabilities and
different transmission ranges and that the skilled artisans would have
appreciated and combined the known capabilities. (Ans. 5—6).
Appellant has not established the Maruyama reference teaches away
from the claimed invention because Appellant has not demonstrated that “a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed Cir. 1994). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the disputed
limitations obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
7
Appeal 2015-007795
Application 13/597,717
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent
claim 1, or claims 2—23, not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—23 based upon obviousness.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8