Ex Parte Dunkelberger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

12852159 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
12/852,159 08/06/2010 Troy T. DUNKET .BERGER 23383-3783 US (191543) 3254
38598 7590 10/20/2017
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
13501 STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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):
DCIPDOCKETING@ andrewskurth.com
PTODC @ andre wskurth .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TROY T. DUNKELBERGER and JUSTIN ADKINS
Appeal 2016-002692
Application 12/852,1591
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 11—26, 29, 30, and 32—34,
which constitute all of the claims in the present appeal. App. Br. 5. Claims
8, 10, 27, 28, and 31 are canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Northrop Grumman
Systems Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002692
Application 12/852,159
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
layered architecture for customer payload in unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs). Spec. 4:5—24, Fig. 1. Specifically, the architecture includes a
platform layer (110) stackable to an equipment layer (120) stackable to a
datalink layer (130), wherein a preceding layer is linked to an adjacent one
via a standard interface (115, 125) to ensure compatibility between the stack
of layers. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A layered architecture for customer payload systems in
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comprising:
a platform layer that provides standard mechanical
interfaces and electrical interfaces of an unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV);
an equipment layer, wherein the equipment layer
comprises a housing that contains customer payload equipment,
wherein a video source is embedded into the customer payload
equipment and the video source is a camera;
a data link layer that contains a data link transceiver for
controlling the customer payload equipment;
a first standard interface between the platform layer and
the equipment layer to enable two or more platform and
equipment layer components to be compatible with each other;
and
a second standard interface between the equipment layer
and the data link layer to enable two or more equipment and data
link layer components to be compatible with each other.
2
Appeal 2016-002692
Application 12/852,159
Prior Art Relied Upon
McAndrew US 2011/0035149 A1 Feb. 10, 2011
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—7, 9, 11—26, 29, 30, and 32—32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(e) as being anticipated by McAndrew. Final Act. 3—9.2
ANALYSIS3
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that McAndrew
does not describe a platform layer providing standard mechanical interfaces
and electrical interfaces. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 4—5. In particular,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding McAndrew’s disclosure of
“well-defined interfaces and various components of the mission plan”
describes the standard electrical interfaces and standard mechanical
interfaces of the platform layer required by the claim. See Reply Br. 4—5
(citing McAndrew 28). According to Appellants, McAndrew’s interfaces
pertain to conceptual interface notions that do not have anything to do with
claimed electrical and mechanical interfaces. Id. This argument is
persuasive.
At the outset, we note the Examiner has not particularly identified a
structure in McAndrew that corresponds to the layered architecture recited in
the claim. Instead, the Examiner relies upon paragraph 28 of McAndrew to
2 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejection previously
entered against claim 34. Ans. 2.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 26, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed January 13, 2016, “Reply Br.”), Answer (mailed November 18, 2015,
“Ans.”) and the Final Rejection (mailed December 23, 2014, “Final Act.”)
for their respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-002692
Application 12/852,159
substantiate the rejection. Final Act. 3—4, Ans. 2—3. We agree with
Appellants that while the cited portion of Me Andrew discloses the division
of hardware and software components separated by well-defined interfaces
to allow greater parallelism, it does not specifically describe a platform layer
with electrical and mechanical interfaces. That is, although the well-defined
interfaces could possibly include mechanical and electrical ones, such a
description is not readily ascertainable from the cited portion of Me Andrew
to justify the asserted equivalency under the anticipation standard.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error with
respect to this rejection, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’
remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 2—7, 9, 11—26, 29, 30, and 32—34, which also recite the
disputed limitations.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—7, 9, 11—
26, 29, 30, and 32-34.
REVERSED
4