Ex Parte Entsminger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2016

12187112 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/187,112
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
08/06/2008
06/10/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam Entsminger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0018478-5548/1121-213US1 2397
EXAMINER
DIXON, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM ENTSMINGER and
DANIEL ROSS COLLETTE
Appeal2014-004159
Application 12/187, 112
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 17-19. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 12 due to its dependency on
claim 10, which was objected to but described as containing allowable
subject matter. Ans. 4.
Appeal2014-004159
Application 12/187, 112
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an integrated duct design for an unmanned
aerial vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
Claiml: A ducted fan air vehicle comprising:
a fan comprising an axis of rotation; and
a duct comprising:
an inside duct wall having a substantially circular
cross-section;
an outside duct wall cooperatively engaged with the
inside duct wall to form an at least partially enclosed
space; and
a plurality of enlarged areas of the at least partially
enclosed space, wherein the plurality of enlarged areas extend
outwardly in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation of
the fan, and wherein portions of the outside duct wall defining
the plurality of enlarged areas define surfaces of the duct that
extend furthest from the axis of rotation of the fan in the direction
perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the fan.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Buchelt us 5,035,377 July 30, 1991
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Buchelt. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-004159
Application 12/187, 112
Claims 3, 7-9, 11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buchelt. 2 Final Act. 4.
OPINION
The Examiner found Buchelt taught "a plurality of enlarged areas of
the at least partially enclosed space." Final Act. 2, Ans. 3. The Examiner
annotated Figure 2 of Buchelt, pointing to an outermost surface of disk body
1 as being the "enlarged area." Ans. 3. The Examiner appears to be
referring to the widest section of the teardrop-shaped cross-section of disk
body 1 located above side containers 25 '. Appellants argue these areas are
not enlarged relative to any other portion of the support body. App. Br. 7.
The area indicated by the Examiner appears to be enlarged with
respect to an area of the cross-section located nearer to the axis of rotation
(i.e., an area located near the "tip" of the teardrop). Although, this may be
considered an enlarged portion of the at least partially enclosed space, it is
unclear how this interpretation results in "a plurality" of enlarged areas as
required by claim 1. Because disk body 1 is of a toroidal shape (Buchelt,
Fig. 1 ), this interpretation by the Examiner only meets a singular enlarged
area. The Examiner failed to clearly articulate which areas of disk body 1
are "a plurality of enlarged areas." Based on the annotated Figure provided
in the Answer, we are not apprised of a "plurality" of enlarged areas in
Buchelt.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 17-19 are
reversed.
2 The Examiner indicated the inclusion of Frantz (US 4, 132,240) in the
rejection of claims 3, 7-9, 11, and 17-19 was a typographical error. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2014-004159
Application 12/187, 112
REVERSED
4