Ex Parte Wavering et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

10929318 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

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.
10/929,318 08/30/2004 Jeffrey T. Wavering 67036-056; B05870-AT1 5774
26096 7590 09/28/2010
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JEFFREY T. WAVERING, ERIC A. CARTER, and
JOSEF MAIER
____________________

Appeal 2009-007530
Application 10/929,318
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and STEVEN D.A.
MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007530
Application 10/929,318
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to electrical panels for aircraft power
distribution systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An aircraft electric power generation and distribution system
comprising:
a primary distribution panel; and
a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) panel mounted to
and in electrical communication with said primary distribution
panel.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Guth
Domigan
US 4,689,733
US 5,675,194
Aug. 25, 1987
Oct. 7, 1997
Atkey US 2004/0129835 A1 Jul. 8, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atkey, Domigan, and Guth. Ans. 4.

OPINION
We are in agreement with Appellants that the applied prior art does
not render obvious the subject matter of a high voltage direct current panel
mounted to a primary distribution panel. We acknowledge that Atkey
Appeal 2009-007530
Application 10/929,318
3
discloses a high voltage (230 Vac) power distribution panel at 515b. Paras.
[0046-7] and Fig. 5. Atkey also discloses a high voltage direct current bus at
this location. Id. However, the most likely interpretation of Figure 5 is that
the high voltage DC bus resides in the primary distribution panel. We see no
reason to interpret this figure as requiring two separate panels--a primary
distribution panel and a high voltage direct current panel mounted to one
another. We reach this conclusion because a direct current panel at this
location is not even mentioned in the published application’s specification or
drawing.
Moreover, the Examiner calls 410a, as shown in Figure 4, a
“secondary power panel.” Ans. 4. In the following sentences, however, the
Examiner acknowledges that 410a is actually the forward electronics bay.
Therefore, Atkey neither teaches a HVDC panel mounted to the primary
distribution panel, as called for in independent claims 1 and 11, or a
secondary power panel, as called for in independent claim 11.
Turning to Domigan, we note that Domigan is directed to electrical
power distribution for modular buildings. Putting aside that it is unclear that
architectural electrical components are suggestive of aircraft systems, where
weight and reliability are an issue, it is our finding that Domigan does not
show a high voltage panel mounted to a primary distribution panel. The
primary power distribution panel 18 is clearly mounted away from the
plurality of modular power distribution units 14a-14d as well as being
mounted away from the service distribution units 24a -24d. Col. 2, ll. 46-60;
col. 3, ll. 56-59; fig. 2.
Since neither of these references discloses a primary distribution panel
having a high voltage direct current panel mounted thereto, the applied
references do not show an argued element of the claimed combination. Guth
Appeal 2009-007530
Application 10/929,318
4
has not been cited to show two panels mounted together. Since a crucial
claim limitation is missing from the applied prior, the applied prior art does
not establish the prima facie obviousness of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

nlk

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009