Ex Parte Teller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13547503 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
13/547,503 07/12/2012 Eric Teller 12-306 4216
138779 7590 04/27/2017
MoDnnnell Rnehnen Hnlhert Rr Rerahnff T T P/
EXAMINER
X Development LLC
300 South Wacker Drive
WANG, MICHAEL H
Chicago, IL 60606 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC TELLER, RICHARD WAYNE DEVAUL,
JOSHUA WEAVER, CLIFFORD L. BIFFLE,
BRADLEY RHODES, and ANTON STAAF
Appeal 2015-004366
Application 13/547,503
Technology Center 3600
Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-004366
Application 13/547,503
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a balloon and a method of controlling
aspects of the balloon. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
determining a position of a balloon with respect to a
predetermined zone, wherein the predetermined zone comprises
an exclusion zone and a shadow zone, wherein the exclusion
zone comprises airspace over a predetermined geographic area
and the shadow zone comprises airspace over a geographic area
adjacent the predetermined geographic area, and wherein the
balloon comprises a cut-down device, a payload, and an
envelope; and
causing, using the cut-down device, at least the payload to
land in response to a determination that the position of the
balloon is within the predetermined zone.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
Claims 1—8, 13—20, and 24—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Knoblach and Engels.
Claims 9, 10, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knoblach, Engels, and Strong.
Claims 11, 12, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knoblach, Engels, and Farr.
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Strong
Knoblach
Farr
Engels
US 7,059,570 B2 June 13, 2006
US 7,356,390 B2 Apr. 8, 2008
US 8,006,936 B1 Aug. 30, 2011
US 8,068,038 B2 Nov. 29, 2011
REJECTIONS
2
Appeal 2015-004366
Application 13/547,503
OPINION
Claims 1,13, and 24 are independent. Appellants argue all of the
claims together. See generally Appeal Br. We select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Knoblach teaches the claimed balloon, as
well as “determining a position of a balloon with respect to a predetermined
zone” and “causing, using the cut-down device, at least the payload to land
in response to a determination that the position of the balloon is within the
predetermined zone.” Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner then finds that Engels
teaches an exclusion zone (terrain 506) and an adjacent shadow zone (buffer
zone 512). Id. at 3; Ans. 11. Finally, the Examiner finds that “Knoblach
and Engels do not disclose the exclusion zone comprising airspace over a
predetermined geographic area and the shadow zone comprising airspace
over a geographic area adjacent the predetermined geographic area,” but
determines that “it would be an obvious matter of design choice to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to set the exclusion zone as any area that the
balloon needs to avoid and the shadow zone as the area around the exclusion
zone.” Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants first argue that “Engel[s]’s arrangement of buffer zone 512
above terrain 506 [in Figure 5] does not correspond to a ‘shadow zone’ that
‘comprises airspace over a geographic area adjacent the predetermined
geographic area,’ i.e., the predetermined geographic area of the ‘exclusion
zone.’” Appeal Br. 5. Similarly, Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s
reliance on “design choice” involves the Examiner improperly rearranging
Engels’s terrain 506 and buffer zone 512 to achieve the claimed
configuration of the exclusion and shadow zones. Id. at 7. Appellants later
3
Appeal 2015-004366
Application 13/547,503
argue that “Engels teaches that buffer zone 512 covers the same geographic
area as the terrain 506” and that “[t]here is nothing in Engels that suggests
that buffer zone 512 should cover a different geographic area than terrain
506.” Id. at 9.
It is true that Engels’s Figure 5 shows mountain tops essentially in
line with each other so that the buffer zone is directly above the terrain to be
avoided. But there is nothing in Engels that would limit the disclosure to
even-leveled or relatively flat terrain. One of skill in the art would
understand that the view of terrain shown in Figure 5 is completely
dependent on the terrain. Thus, different terrain, such as where features on
the ground are more abrupt (Engels, col. 6:45—48 (discussing terrain sensors
to identity buildings and the like)) would result in the claimed orientation,
where the shadow zone is around the terrain to be avoided, and therefore
“adjacent the predetermined geographic area” as claimed. See Ans. 11
(“flight paths should be routed around areas for aircraft to avoid, regardless
of their arrangement or orientation”).
Appellants also argue that that Engels’s terrain 506 and buffer zone
512 are not functionally equivalent to the claimed exclusion and shadow
zones. Appeal Br. 7. This is because if the buffer zone were “no long[er]
above terrain 506 (the alleged ‘exclusion zone’) but instead above an
adjacent geographic area [this] would result in a buffer zone . . . not []
related to the desired flight path.” Id. at 7—8. Thus, the buffer zone would
“no longer perform[] the function of providing ‘an additional measure of
safety’ of the desired flight path ‘for purposes of clearing the offending
terrain.’” Id. at 7 (citing Engels col. 13:31—39).
4
Appeal 2015-004366
Application 13/547,503
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Claim 1 does not exclude the shadow zone from also being over the
geographic area associated with the exclusion zone. Rather, the claim states
in open ended terms “the shadow zone comprises airspace over a geographic
area adjacent the predetermined geographic area.” Thus, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants also argue that the terrain of Engels does not include
airspace as claimed, but is limited to land. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, it is argued,
Engels does not teach or suggest ‘“the exclusion zone comprising airspace’”
as required by claim 1. Id. This fact is not in dispute. See Final Act. 3.
Rather, the Examiner finds that “it would be an obvious design choice to
apply the teachings from Engels in order to route aircraft around any area
that must be avoided.” Ans. 11—12. In other words, it would be obvious to
avoid areas that include airspace, as would be the case when flying
Knoblach’s balloon within the designated bands of airspace as taught by
Knoblach. Knoblach, col. 31:28—32; see also Final Act. 4. Thus, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—28 are 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
5