10552097 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

Ex Parte Chow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 2014

10552097 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

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. 10/552,097 02/21/2006 Leung Choi Chow 2733.35WOUS 4192 24113 7590 02/27/2014 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. 4800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER MICHENER, JOSHUA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3635 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2014 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 LEUNG CHOI CHOW and CHRISTOPHER NEIL WOOD ____________ Appeal 2012-000543 Application 10/552,097 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-18, 20, 23, 27-29, and 33-35. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-000543 Application 10/552,097 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 28 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and recites, with phrases of particular interest emphasized: 28. A retractable aircraft landing gear including a wheel/tire assembly, said wheel/tire assembly including a wheel having a rim around which there is mounted a tire, wherein the wheel further includes at least one part that smoothly envelopes the junction between the tire and the rim, said at least one part being shaped such that on at least one side of the wheel, during use of the landing gear on an aircraft when airborne and the landing gear is in a position ready for landing of the aircraft, a surface exposed to the airflow of said at least one part interfaces smoothly between a surface, exposed to the airflow, of the tire and a surface, exposed to the airflow, of the wheel so that in use the flow of air past said at least one part is streamlined and wherein on at least one side of the wheel when the landing gear is in a position ready for landing of the aircraft, the surface of the wheel/tire assembly presented to the airflow across the part bounded by the widest part of the tire is substantially flat. Claim 15 is similar to claim 28 in that it recites in pertinent part, with added emphasis: 15. An aircraft comprising a landing gear . . . including a wheel/tire assembly, said wheel/tire assembly including a wheel having a rim around which there is mounted a tire, wherein . . . (d) on at least one side of the wheel during use of the aircraft when airborne and the landing gear is in a position ready for landing of the aircraft, the surface of the wheel/tire assembly presented to the airflow across the part bounded by the widest part of the tire is substantially flat. Rejections Claims 15-18, 20, 23, 27-29, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartel (US 3,133,717, iss. May 19, Appeal 2012-000543 Application 10/552,097 3 1964) or Labrecque (US 3,430,896, iss. Mar. 4, 1969) and Roth (US 1,743,074, iss. Jan. 7, 1930).1 OPINION Claims 15 and 28 each recite that “the surface of the wheel/tire assembly presented to the airflow across the part bounded by the widest part of the tire is substantially flat.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds each of Hartel and Labrecque lack, but that Roth discloses, the aforementioned limitation of claims 15 and 28. Ans. 5 and 8. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “the surface of . . . [Roth’s] wheel/tire assembly [which is] presented to the airflow within the part bounded by the widest part of the tire is ‘substantially’ flat in shape.” Id.; see Roth fig. 2. The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding concerning Roth is incorrect because when the claim language is properly construed the finding does not read on the Roth’s wheel. App. Br. 22-26. The Appellants contention is persuasive. Regarding the construction of the claim language, we agree with the Appellants that the Examiner misconstrues the forward slash “/” between the word “wheel” and “tire” as “or.” Ans. 12 and 16. The Appellants contend that the plain language of the claims “explicitly defines the ‘wheel/tire assembly’ . . . as ‘including a wheel having a rim around which there is mounted a tire.’” App. Br. 24. For that reason, the forward slash between the word “wheel” and “tire” is understood as a hyphen or a dash rather than “or.” Reply Br. 9. 1 We have consolidated the Examiner’s rejections at pages 4 and 7 of the Answer. Appeal 2012-000543 Application 10/552,097 4 At the outset, we note that Roth’s Figure 2 depicts “the top half of the tire” and the area located slightly above reference numeral 37 as “the widest point of the tire.” App. Br. 25. Also, Figure 2 depicts discs 26 and 27 as “ha[ving] a central portion of frusto-conical shape 28 with a central opening 29 formed therein.” Roth, p. 1, ll. 96-99; see also App. Br. 25-26. The Appellants contend, and we agree, that the frusto-conical shape 28 and the central opening 29 evidence “that there is a section where the surface presented to the airflow is not substantially flat in shape.” App. Br. 26. For the above reasons, the Examiner’s finding that Roth discloses “the surface of the wheel/tire assembly presented to the airflow across the part bounded by the widest part of the tire is substantially flat” is incorrect. As such, the Examiner’s rejections lack rational underpinning. Thus, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15-18, 20, 23, 27-29, and 33-35 as unpatentable over Hartel or Labrecque and Roth are not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 15-18, 20, 23, 27-29, and 33- 35. REVERSED Klh