Ex Parte Wagner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13036968 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/036,968 02/28/2011 Carl A. Wagner PA0014334U-U100.12-0223KL 5970
88326 7590 09/05/2017
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
BARNETT, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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 S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL A. WAGNER, MICHAEL KRENZ, and
DAVID L. JACQUES1
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
AVELYN M. ROSS Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation.
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. An emergency power system for use on an aircraft, the emergency
power system comprising:
a ram air turbine;
an emergency electrical generator coupled to the ram air turbine for
generating emergency electrical power;
a plurality of electrical loads;
an electrical power distribution network connecting the emergency
electrical generator to the plurality of electrical loads;
at least one sensor configured to sense aircraft flight data; and
a controller for controlling the electrical power distribution network to
selectively couple and decouple the electrical loads to and from the
emergency electrical generator based upon a priority rank assigned to each
of the electrical loads, wherein the controller determines an anticipated
emergency power availability based on the aircraft flight data.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
“Instrument Flying Handbook?' Federal Aviation Administration (2007),
hereinafter (FAA).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Cavanaugh
Kroiss
Paik
US 3,379,893
US 5,916,298
US 7,786,617 B2
Apr. 23, 1968
June 29, 1999
Aug. 31,2010
2
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
“Parts of an Airplane’’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(2010), hereinafter (NASA).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—5 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cavanaugh in view of FAA, and further in view
of Kroiss.
2. Claims 8—10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cavanaugh in view of NASA, and further in view of
FAA and Kroiss.
3. Claims 11—13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cavanaugh in view of FAA, and further in view of
Kroiss and Paik.
4. Claims 14 and 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paik in view of FAA, and further in
view of Kroiss.
ANAFYSIS
We select claims 1 and 14 as representative of all the claims on
appeal, based upon Appellants’ presented arguments. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). We affirm each rejection for essentially the
reasons provided by the Examiner in the record, and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
It is the Examiner’s position that Cavanaugh discloses an emergency
power system that includes a ram air turbine, an emergency electrical
generator, electrical loads, an electrical power distribution network, and a
3
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
controller. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Cavanaugh fails to
teach a sensor configured to sense aircraft data, so the Examiner relies upon
the FAA document for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
also acknowledges that Cavanaugh in view of the FAA document fails to
teach that the controller determines an anticipated emergency power
availability based on aircraft flight data. The Examiner relies upon Kroiss
for teaching a controller that determines anticipated emergency power, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified the system of
Cavanaugh in view of the FAA to include power availability and range
information as disclosed by Kroiss “in order to estimate the distance the
aircraft is capable of traveling to ensure a safe landing.” Final Act. 4.
Appellants state that claim 1 recites that “the controller determines an
anticipated emergency power availability based on the aircraft flight data.”
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants explain that the Specification discloses that
aircraft sensors may be utilized to sense, for example, flight, engine, and/or
other aircraft data. Spec., 124. This aircraft flight data may then be utilized
by the controller to anticipate aircraft emergency electrical power
availability over the course of an emergency. Spec., 137. Emergency power
is utilized when primary power from the thrust producing power sources of
an aircraft become unavailable. Spec., 13. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants argue that Kroiss teaches a system for an automobile that
determines an expected remaining drive range. Kroiss, Abstract. Appeal Br.
6. Appellants argue that the display unit provides a driving distance display
that indicates to a driver a range of driving distance still to be expected.
Kroiss, col. 2,11. 23-25. The expected driving distance is determined based
4
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
upon an energy storage device and the capabilities of the primary engine.
Kroiss, col. 2,11. 23-31. Appellants state that all embodiments disclosed by
Kroiss include engine operation in determination of the expected driving
distance. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants submit that Kroiss does not suggest the use of emergency
power at all. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue that Kroiss simply discloses a
system that determines an expected driving distance during normal operation
of the vehicle. This expected driving distance is calculated based on the
vehicle’s engine (primary power) providing energy to propel the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 6—7. Appellants submit that because all embodiments disclosed
by Kroiss include engine consumption (primary power) in determination
of the expected driving distance, Kroiss fails to teach or suggest emergency
power usage. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants conclude that because Kroiss does
not teach emergency power usage, Kroiss fails to teach determination of an
anticipated emergency energy availability. Appeal Br. 7.
While Appellants argue that expected driving distance according to
Kroiss does not provide sufficient data during an emergency to provide
proper load prioritization because an emergency may not occur during the
entire duration of a trip, Appellants own Specification indicates that this type
of data (required travel distance data obtained via use of a GPS antenna), is
sufficient. Spec., 1 [0037]. As such, we are unpersuaded by such argument.
With regard to claim 14, Appellants argue the limitation of claim 14
pertaining to “determining an expected energy production plan over an
anticipated duration of an emergency based upon the aircraft flight data.”
Appeal Br. 7—8. In so doing, Appellants address the Examiner's statements
5
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
made on page 11 of the Final Office Action that “the operator can decide the
production plan with recommendations from the power system” and “the
duration of the emergency is the amount of time running on auxiliary
power”, and argues “Paik makes no mention of any amount of time running
on auxiliary power.” Appeal Br. 8.
Addressing the Appellant’s argument with regard to the Examiner's
statements, we agree with the Examiner’s stated response made on page 4 of
the Answer that there is no device disclosed in claim 14 which performs the
method of “determining an expected energy production plan over an
anticipated duration of an emergency based upon the aircraft flight data.” As
such, we agree with the Examiner that the operator of the aircraft can
perform this function by looking at the flight data that would be displayed.
Further, Appellant fails to persuade us that the combination including
Kroiss’s teaching as to distance of travel, as explained above in discussing
claim 1, and Cavanaugh’s teaching as to ram air turbine for generating
power, would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed
subject matter as the available emergency electrical power is a function of
ram air turbine operation over the distance traveled.
The Examiner further points out (and we agree) that the main purpose
of the backup power system of Paik is to provide power through the duration
for which the main power supply is inoperable and specifically notes that
“maximum runtime” is a mode of operation in column 13, lines 46-50 of
Paik, which allows the system to operate as long as possible on the backup
power source, or in other words, the longest amount of time to “ride out” the
6
Appeal 2015-008091
Application 13/036,968
failure of the main power supply, and Kroiss anticipates the remaining
power duration. Ans. 4.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1—4.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7