Ex Parte Shachor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13759087 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
13/759,087 02/05/2013 Gabriel Shachor 8338-US 1040
69054 7590 07/24/2017
RFfTTFS PATFNTS
EXAMINER
211 North Union St. WANG, MICHAEL H
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHESO@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIEL SHACHOR, SHY COHEN,
and RONEN KEIDAR
Appeal 2016-0051101
Application 13/759,0872
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1—9, 21, and 41^44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Oct. 13, 2014), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 2, 2015), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SkySpience Ltd.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005110
Application 13/759,087
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates to aerial units with multiple propellers and
methods for “lifting equipment for height observation or signaling such as an
observation camera.” Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—9, 21, and 41—44 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed claims and recites:
1. An aerial unit, comprising:
a first propeller;
a second propeller that is spaced apart from the first
propeller and is below the first propeller;
a propelling module that is configured to rotate the first
propeller and the second propeller about a first axis;
an apertured duct that comprises a first duct portion and a
second duct portion;
wherein the first duct portion surrounds the first
propeller;
wherein the second duct portion surrounds the
second propeller;
wherein the apertured duct defines at least one
aperture at an intermediate area that is positioned below
the first propeller and is above the second propeller;
wherein an aggregate size of the at least one
aperture is at least fifty percent of a size of the intermediate
area;
a frame that is connected to the propelling module and to
the apertured duct;
at least one steering element; and
an interfacing module arranged to be connected to a
connecting element that couples the aerial unit to a ground unit.
Br. 23.
2
Appeal 2016-005110
Application 13/759,087
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—9 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Poltorak3 in view of Carroll.4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Poltorak in view of Carroll and Bamea.5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 43 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Poltorak in view of Carroll and Nannoni.6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Poltorak in view of Carroll, Bamea, and Nannoni.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, we note that although Appellants argue the
independent claims and certain dependent claims separately, Appellants rely
on the same arguments for all claims. See Br. 13—22. Thus, although we
discuss only claim 1 below, the discussion is applicable to all claims on
appeal.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Poltorak discloses an
aerial unit including a first propeller, a second propeller, a propelling
module, an apertured duct, a frame, and at least one steering element as
claimed. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Poltorak Fig. 8; col. 3,11. 1—2; col. 7,11. 14—
16). The Examiner acknowledges that Poltorak does not disclose an
interfacing module arranged as claimed. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further
finds that Carrol discloses an aerial unit with an interfacing module
3 Poltorak, US 7,802,755 B2, iss. Sept. 28, 2010.
4 Carroll, US 8,350,403 B2, iss. Jan. 8, 2013.
5 Bamea, WO 2007/141795 Al, pub. Dec. 13, 2007.
6 Nannoni et al., US 2012/0153074 Al, pub. June 21, 2012.
3
Appeal 2016-005110
Application 13/759,087
connected to a connecting element that couples the aerial unit to a ground
unit. Id. (citing Carroll Fig. 1; col. 3,11. 46-47). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Poltorak to include an interfacing
module as taught by Carroll. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue only that both Poltorak and Carroll teach away from
the claimed invention. See Br. 14—15. For the reasons discussed below, we
are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellants’ arguments.
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of
another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”
Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
With respect to Poltorak, Appellants assert that “Poltorak emphasizes
that Helicopters are dangerous and fragile (column 1, lines 53-67) and can
be damaged by obstacles such as power cords and other low altitude
objects.” Br. 14. Thus, Appellants argue that “[s]uch a helicopter teaches
away from the claimed invention as it must not include an interfacing
module arranged to be connected to a connecting element that couples the
aerial unit to a ground unit - coupling the helicopter to a ground unit will
cause the helicopter to crash.” Id. We disagree. Although Poltorak
discusses the dangers related to objects in the vicinity of a flying helicopter,
4
Appeal 2016-005110
Application 13/759,087
Poltorak indicates that the disclosed device is designed to provide protection
to the rotor during impacts with external objects. Poltorak col. 2,11. 47 49.
Based on this disclosure, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that
coupling Poltorak’s aerial unit with a ground unit will necessarily cause it to
crash. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize from Carroll that an aerial unit may be connected by
a tether to a ground unit without interfering in the operation of the rotors of
the aerial unit. See Ans. 11. Thus, Appellants have not adequately shown
that Poltorak criticizes, discredits, or discourages the claimed configuration
such that Poltorak may be said to teach away from the claimed invention.
With respect to Carroll, Appellants assert that Carroll’s use of ductless
rotors teaches away from the claimed invention “especially [because
Carroll’s rotors] are vast and should receive the entire energy of the wind —
without having ducts that obscure the wind.” Br. 15. We disagree that
Carroll teaches away for the reasons provided by the Examiner. Ans. 12.
Specifically, the rejection relies on Carroll only to teach an interfacing
module arranged to connect an aerial unit to a ground unit. Id. Appellants
do not explain why Carroll’s use of ductless rotors would discourage the use
of an interfacing module as relied upon by the Examiner.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 2—9, 21, and 41 44.
5
Appeal 2016-005110
Application 13/759,087
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—9, 21, and 41—44 for the
reason set forth herein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6