Ex Parte Goranson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2014

11614951 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETE T. GORANSON,
DANIEL W. ADKINSON, and GREGORY T. ANACKER
____________

Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pete T. Goranson et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4–13, and 16–22. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electric brake system for an
aircraft. Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An electric brake system for an aircraft, the electric
brake system comprising:
a wheel-brake configured to produce brake torque in
response to a clamping force;

a plurality of electric brake actuators (EBAs) configured
to provide the clamping force for the wheel-brake;

a plurality of sensors coupled to the EBAs and
configured to sense EBA parameters;

an EBA motor controller coupled by to the EBAs,
wherein the EBA motor controller is configured to execute an
overdrive initiation process:

monitor the EBA parameters for occurrence of a failure
condition, said failure condition comprising partial and pending
failures of a respective EBA associated with a respective wheel-
brake, said monitoring comprising determining functional EBA
operation including a lost clamping force;

detect at least one failed EBA associated with a
respective wheel-brake based upon the failure condition;

disable the at least one failed EBA; and

proportionally overdrive remaining functional EBAs
associated with the respective wheel-brake and/or another
wheel brake directly fore or aft from the at least one failed EBA
by an amount partially or fully equivalent to said lost clamping
force of the at least one failed EBA and to partially compensate
for the at least one failed EBA based upon a number of EBA's
and overdrive capability designed for each EBA.

Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 4–13, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim that subject matter regarded as the invention;
(ii) claims 1, 4–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Arnold (US 2003/0010583 A1, published Jan. 16,
2003) in view of Hac (US 2005/0057095 A1, published Mar. 17, 2005),
Osterman (US 2001/0035820 A1, published Nov. 1, 2001), and Chubb (US
2002/0167218 A1, published Nov. 14, 2002); and
(iii) claims 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arnold in view of Hac, Osterman, Chubb, and Yamamoto
(US 6,416,140 B1, issued July 9, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4–13, and 16–22--35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Appeal Brief traverses the indefiniteness rejection on grounds
that had been withdrawn by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 10–13; Answer 11.
The rejection on appeal is based upon the presence, in independent claims 1,
9, and 16, of the term “designed” in the expression “overdrive capability
designed for each EBA.” Answer 5. Appellants do not present arguments
directed to this rejection, and indicate that they are amenable to deleting the
term “designed” from these claims. Reply Br. 3.
The rejection of claims 1, 4–13, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is summarily sustained.

Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

4
Claims 1, 4–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22--Obviousness--Arnold/Hac et al.
Appellants argue all of claims 1, 4–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 as a group.
Appeal Br. 13–18.1 We will take claim 1 as representative, and claims 4–13,
16, 18, 20, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants first argue that Hac does not disclose that a lost clamping
force is compensated for by overdriving remaining (non-failed) electronic
brake actuators (EBAs) on a wheel brake, as claimed. Appeal Br. 16.
Although it appears that Hac indeed does disclose this aspect, the argument
is moot, in that the Examiner relies on Arnold as disclosing overdriving
functioning EBAs on a wheel brake in the event of a failure of one of the
EBAs. Answer 6–7, citing Arnold, para. 14. The Examiner cites to Hac
simply for its explicit recognition of and determination of a lost clamping
(braking) force upon the failure of an EBA, whereas the Examiner notes that
Arnold does not explicitly disclose that a determination of lost clamping
force is made. Id.
Appellants next argue that Arnold “does not recite a lost clamping
force being compensated by overdriving remaining EBA’s (electronic brake
actuators) on a wheel brake in accordance with their overdrive capabilities,
as claimed.” Appeal Br. 17. However, as noted by Appellants, paragraph 6
of Arnold discloses a mode in which, with a failed actuator on one wheel,
the level of energization to the remaining actuators associated with the same

1 Appellants identify limitations found in each of independent claims 1, 9,
and 16, which are essentially the same limitation insofar as the Examiner’s
application of the prior art to each of these claims is concerned. Appeal Br.
14. Appellants do not argue that there is any substantive difference among
the quoted limitations from the three claims.
Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

5
wheel is increased. This is further explained at paragraph 14 of Arnold,
which notes that a failed EBA (termed EMA in Arnold) may be inhibited
and compensated for “by driving the other three EMAs on the same wheel
harder.” This effectively discloses overdriving the non-failed EBAs to
compensate for the lost braking or clamping force as a result of inhibiting
the failed EBA. Appellants’ argument is not supported by the Arnold patent.
Appellants further argue that Osterman and Chubb do not disclose this
limitation alleged to be missing in Arnold. Appeal Br. 17. As noted above,
we do not see that the limitation is not met by Arnold. The Examiner does
not rely on Osterman or Chubb as teaching this limitation, in any event. The
arguments are thus not commensurate with the actual basis for the rejection.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants point out that Arnold takes into
consideration potential problems with yaw, whereas “Appellant’s [sic]
disclosure does not mention yaw at all.” Reply Br. 4. We do not find this to
be probative of the alleged absence of a teaching in Arnold that the
remaining functional EBAs are driven harder (overdrive) to compensate for
the lost braking power as a result of a failed and inhibited EBA.
Appellants further maintain that Hac “relates to different problems in
a different context, and thus should not be combined with the Arnold
reference at all.” Reply Br. 4. This position appears to be founded on the
fact that Hac is directed to a braking system that employs only one EBA per
wheel, whereas claim 1 relates to braking systems having multiple brake
actuators per wheel. Id.
It is first noted that the Examiner relies on Arnold as teaching a
braking system having multiple brake actuators per wheel. Answer 6. As
such, the lack of such a teaching in Hac does not undermine the rejection.
Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

6
To the extent that Appellants’ argument is intended to take the position that
Hac is nonanalogous art, Appellants have not demonstrated that Hac is either
outside Appellants’ and Arnold’s field of endeavor, and, even if so, is not
reasonably pertinent to the problem Appellants were seeking to solve. Hac
is directed to redistributing brake forces lost during actuator failure to the
remaining actuators, to either fully or partially compensate for the lost brake
force. Hac, paras. 35, 27, 44. This is the basic premise of Appellants’
invention. The argument thus fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Hac in combination with Arnold.
We have considered the remaining arguments in Appellants’ Reply
Brief, and do not find them to apprise us of error on the Examiner’s part in
rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Arnold, Hac, and the Osterman and Chubb
references. In particular, Appellants maintain that Hac “does not disclose
determination of a lost clamping force” (Reply Br. 6), yet Hac expressly
discusses a determination of lost braking (clamping) forces in paragraphs 37
and 44.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Arnold, Hac, Osterman, and Chubb is sustained. Claims
4–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 fall with claim 1.

Claims 17, 19, and 21--Obviousness--Arnold/Hac et al. and Yamamoto
Appellants maintain that claims 17, 19, and 21 are allowable on the
basis that they are each dependent upon an allowable base claim. Appeal Br.
19. As discussed above, we do not agree that the base claims from which
these claims depend are patentable over the cited references. In a related
vein, Appellants argue that Yamamoto fails to overcome the deficiencies in
Appeal 2012-010654
Application 11/614,951

7
the combination of the references cited against the base claims from which
these claims depend. Id. Again, as discussed above, we are not persuaded
that the combination of Arnold and Hac is deficient in the manner argued.
The rejection of claims 17, 19, and 21 as being unpatentable over
Arnold in view of Hac, Osterman, Chubb, and Yamamoto is sustained.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4–13, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim that subject matter regarded as the invention, is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 1, 4–13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Hac, Osterman, and
Chubb is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Hac, Osterman, Chubb, and
Yamamoto is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

mp