Ex Parte Kuroda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12254456 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/254,456 10/20/2008 Y oshikatsu KURODA
38834 7590 08/12/2016
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT A VENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
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.
082340 1433
EXAMINER
FABULA, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIKATSU KURODA, MASAHIRO ATSUMI,
NAOHIKO ABE, and MASAHIRO KA TO
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yoshikatsu Kuroda et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-7. 1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An aerospace vehicle system comprising:
a rocket having two or more stages;
a rocket engine for each said stage;
a satellite detachably fastened to the rocket;
an electronic device installed inside the satellite; and
a signal line electrically connecting said electronic device
to said rocket engine in said each stage rocket, wherein
the electronic device controls the rocket to carry the
satellite into outer space,
the electronic device controls the satellite in outer space
after the satellite is detached from the rocket, and
the signal line is configured to divide into a satellite
portion and a rocket portion.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4--7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lopata (US 6,921,051 B2, iss. July 26, 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Lopata discloses the limitations of claim 1
other than the electronic device is "installed inside the satellite." Final Act.
3-5. The Examiner finds that Lopata's reference to "integration" of the
satellite with the mission computer system (MCS) "implicitly include[ s] the
possibility of housing the MCS (an electronic device) inside the satellite."
Id. at 5. The Examiner alternatively reasons that it would have been obvious
"to install the electronic device inside the satellite, since it has been held that
rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art." Id.
2
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
The Examiner additionally notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
be "motivated to place the MCS of Lopata et al. inside the satellite to
preclude providing the MCS with additional protection against outer space
(i.e. temperature/radiation/meteorite-insulation/ shielding)." Id.
Appellants first contend that Lopata fails to disclose a "signal line
configured to divide into a satellite portion and a rocket portion." Appeal
Br. 3. Appellants argue that merely because Lopata discloses a launch
vehicle with expendable boost motors, such a construction "does not
'necessitate' a signal line configured to divide into a satellite portion and a
rocket portion." Id. Appellants next contend that Lopata does not disclose
or suggest installing the electronic device "inside the satellite." Id. at 4.
Appellants submit that Lopata discloses an electronic device "arranged at the
satellite" but "not located inside the satellite/payload." Id. In support of this
contention, Appellants refer to an excerpt from a statement by one of the
Appellants submitted to the Japanese Patent Office relating to the structure
of satellites "at the time of the present invention." Id. at 5. Appellants also
argue that the Examiner's reliance on In re Japikse for the proposition that
installing the electronic device inside the satellite involves only routine skill
in the art is misplaced because the Examiner's rearrangement of parts would
modify the operation of Lopata's device. Id. at 5---6. Lastly, Appellants
contend that Lopata does not disclose control of the satellite by the
electronic device after separation from the rocket, but rather discloses an
electronic device that conducts "all orbit maintenance maneuvers." Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that Lopata teaches "a satellite bus (i.e. signal
lines) which connects the MCS ... to each of the multiple expendable boost
stages ... the satellite bus will necessarily divide between the discarded
3
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
rocket stages and the bus portions which remain with the satellite." Ans. 3.
The Examiner also reasons that if Lopata does not implicitly disclose a
divided satellite bus, the result would be a "long wiring harness trailing
behind the satellite" and "[i]t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art that this alternative is clearly impractical." Id. at 4. The Examiner
also asserts that reliance on In re Japikse is proper because moving Lopata's
MCS inside the satellite will not modify the operation of the MCS or the
satellite as a whole. Id. at 8. With respect to the issue of control of the
satellite by Lopata's MCS, the Examiner notes that Lopata discloses orbital
maintenance maneuvers which is equivalent to a term of art, station keeping,
and that is in fact positional control of the satellite by the MCS after the
rocket separates from the satellite. Id. at 7. For the following reasons, we
sustain the rejection.
The Examiner notes that Lopata refers to prior art satellite systems
having redundant control systems in multistage rocket launch vehicles and a
detachable satellite. Final Act. 3, citing Lopata, col. 3, 11. 16-67. The
Examiner then asserts than Lopata describes "a novel solution" of
combining the prior redundant control systems into "an instrument delivery
and maintenance vehicle (IDMV) which comprises an integrated system that
includes the features and functions of the satellite bus as well as the control
systems for the launch vehicle, all combined into a single unit." Id. at 4,
citing Lopata, col. 7, 11. 24--32. The Examiner then notes that Lopata
describes a launch vehicle as "expendable (Col. 8, lines 7-22) which
necessitates the signal line being configured to divide into a satellite portion
and a rocket portion, since the satellite bus runs from the MCS integrated
with the satellite throughout each of the rocket stages." Id.; see also Ans. 2-
4
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
4. We understand the Examiner to find that because portions of the satellite
bus are part of the expendable launch vehicle which separates from the
satellite, the portion of the satellite bus located in the launch vehicle also
separates from the portion of the satellite bus located in the satellite. Based
on the foregoing, the Examiner's finding that Lopata discloses a signal line
"configured to divide into a satellite portion and a rocket portion" is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
Appellants do not dispute that Lopata discloses an aerospace vehicle
with a single electronic device that remains with the satellite after the rocket
stages separate from the satellite but contend that Lopata does not disclose
installing the electronic device "inside" the satellite. Appeal Br. 4. We thus
understand Appellants to contend that it would involve more than routine
skill in the art, and hence would not be obvious, to locate the electronic
device inside rather than on the outside of the satellite. Appellants do not
offer any persuasive argument or technical reasoning to overcome the
Examiner's assertion that locating the electronic device inside the satellite
would not modify the operation of Lopata's satellite or electronic device.
Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4---6. Rather, Appellants argue that it may be more
difficult to locate the electronic device inside the satellite due to space
limitations. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 8. However, the excerpt from the
statement submitted to the Japanese Patent Office supports the Examiner's
position that the MCS can be located inside the satellite without sacrificing
performance. The cited excerpt states it was known in the art at the time of
2 Even if Lopata didn't disclose a divided satellite bus, the Examiner's
assertion that it would be obvious to divide the satellite bus into portions to
avoid a wiring harness hanging from the satellite after separation from the
launch vehicle is reasonable and supported by rational underpinnings.
5
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
the present invention that computers for use in satellites could be reduced in
size yet have increased performance capabilities. See Appeal Br. 5. Thus,
locating the electronic device inside the satellite does not modify the
operation of the MCS and involves only routine skill in the art. Appellants'
contention that it would involve more than routine skill in the art to locate
the electronic device inside Lopata's satellite is not persuasive.
With respect to whether Lopata discloses an electronic device that
controls the satellite after detachment from the rocket, Appellants refer to
Lopata's disclosure that "[a] guidance, navigation, and propulsion (GNP)
340 system is used to accelerate the IDMV 300 to orbital velocity, maintain
the proper trajectory during ascent and, while on orbit, to conduct all orbit
maintenance maneuvers for the instrument during its operational lifetime."
Appeal Br. 5, quoting Lopata, col. 8, 11. 1---6. Appellants do not offer
persuasive argument or technical reasoning as to why "orbit maintenance
maneuvers," which the Examiner asserts are known in the art as station
keeping or positional control, is not control of the satellite by the electronic
device as recited in claim 1. Appellants merely contend that Lopata "does
not disclose that the device controls the satellite in outer space after the
satellite is detached from the rocket." Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 7. This
contention is a recitation of the claim language and not persuasive. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv )("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.").
Appellants, thus, fail to persuasively apprise us of error in the
Examiner's factual findings or rationale quoted above for modifying Lopata
which we determine to be reasonable and supported by the disclosure in
6
Appeal2014-007554
Application 12/254,456
Lopata. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants do not argue separately for the patentability of claims 2 and 4--7
which are dependent on claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 2 and 4--7.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--7 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7