The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2021001749 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2021)

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.
15/904,003 02/23/2018 Leo W. Plude 18-0350-US-NP 9274
101302 7590 12/17/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman (Boeing)
150 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
CHARLESTON, JEAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2021 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEO W. PLUDE and MALCOLM S. BRYANT
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003
Technology Center 3600
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, 13–16, and 18–23. Claims 2,
12, and 17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate, generally, to landing gear for aircraft and, more
specifically, to controlling landing gear retract braking. Of the pending

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003

2
claims, three are independent—claims 1, 11, and 16. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a controller to:
determine an on-ground status of a wheel of a landing
gear; and
generate a control signal in response to the on-ground
status of the wheel indicating that the wheel is not contacting a
ground surface, the control signal to automatically initiate a
retract braking process for the wheel prior to a landing gear
lever being manually actuated into a gear up position, the
retract braking process to decelerate the wheel from a first rate
of rotation to a second rate of rotation less than the first rate of
rotation.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cahill (US 2017/0355473 Al, published December
14, 2017) and Marles (US 2018/0362151 Al, published December 20, 2018).
2. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill, Marles, and Bourret (US
8,695,921 B2, issued April 15, 2014).
3. Claims 5, 6, 14, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill, Marles, and Le-Bouedec (US
2017/0183086 Al, published June 29, 2017).
4. Claims 7, 8, 15, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill, Marles, and Salamat (US
2003/0111895 Al, published June 19, 2003).
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 11, and 16 as being
obvious over Cahill and Marles. See Final Act. 2–4. In doing so, the
Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Cahill discloses the
claimed “controller” (i.e., Cahill’s controller 110) to “determine an on-
ground status” of a landing gear wheel and “generate a control signal in
response to the on-ground status of the wheel indicating that the wheel is not
contacting a ground surface” (i.e., Cahill’s WOW2 sensor 240 for generating
a WOFFW3 signal 320). Compare Final Act. 3 (citing Cahill ¶ 27, Fig. 3B,
step 319), with Appeal Br. 12–13 (conceding Cahill discloses a “WOW
sensor indicating the in-flight state” and that a “gear retract command may
be issued subsequent to the WOW sensor indicating an in-flight state”).
The Examiner also finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Cahill
discloses the claim limitation of a “retract braking process to decelerate the
wheel from a first rate of rotation to a second rate of rotation less than the
first rate of rotation.” Compare Final Act. 3 (citing Cahill ¶ 31), with
Appeal Br. 12 (conceding Cahill’s disclosure that “gear retract command
may cause a braking and/or deceleration of the wheels of the landing gear
. . . subsequent to the WOW sensor indicating an in-flight state”). Nor does
Appellant dispute the Examiner’s finding that Cahill as modified by Marles
discloses that a control signal based on the WOW sensor may be generated
“prior to a landing gear level being manually actuated into a gear up
position.” See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Marles ¶ 37); Appeal Br. 12–14 (citing
Cahill ¶ 56, Marles ¶¶ 42–44, 59–61).

2 WOW means “weight-on-wheels.” Cahill ¶ 30.
3 WOFFW means “weight-off-wheels.” Cahill ¶ 30.
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003

4
Rather, Appellant’s sole dispute lies in the Examiner’s finding that the
control signal generated in response to Cahill’s WOW sensor “automatically
initiate[s] a retract braking process for the wheel,” as expressly required by
the claims. See Appeal Br. 13 (citing Final Act. 3). According to Appellant,
although Cahill may disclose a retract braking process for the wheel, “Cahill
fails to teach or suggest that issuance of the subsequent gear retract
command is an automated process that occurs in response to the WOW
sensor indicating the in-flight state” of the wheel. Id. (emphasis added). In
other words, Cahill fails to teach how the retract braking process is initiated,
let alone that it is initiated as a result of the WOW sensor detecting that the
wheel is off-the-ground. Instead, Appellant contends, the only control signal
generated in response to an indication from the WOW sensor is a signal for
automatically initiating “a method for detecting a dragging brake” and that
such method “is completed prior to any initiation of the subsequent gear
retract braking process.” Id. at 12.
Appellant has the more persuasive position. Although we agree with
the Examiner that Cahill’s controller generates a control signal in response
to the on-ground status of the wheel from the WOW sensor, nowhere do we
discern any support in Cahill for the Examiner’s finding that the control
signal “initiate[s] a retract braking process for the wheel,” as called for by
the claims. Indeed, rather than relying on Cahill’s discussion of the retract
braking process to satisfy the claimed “control signal,” the Examiner points
to Cahill’s discussion of a different process, namely, “dragging brake
detection” as meeting this claim element. See Final Act. 3 (citing Cahill
¶ 45). Insofar as we can determine, the Examiner appears to read Cahill’s
control signal for initiating the detection of a dragging brake as somehow
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003

5
equating to initiating the different process of retract braking. But the
preponderance of the evidence does not support such a finding.
Nor does the Examiner explain how or why Cahill’s controller might
generate a signal to initiate retract braking without regard to a dragging
brake. Instead, we are left simply with Cahill’s repeated disclosures that it is
the process of dragging brake detection that begins with an indication from
the WOW sensor that the wheels are off the ground, and only subsequent to
that process being completed does the retract braking process begin. See
Cahill ¶¶ 34, 45–46 (stating expressly that the dragging brake detection ends
“prior to the start of gear retract braking”); see also id. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9 (discussing
“time interval” for the dragging brake detection “after takeoff” and “prior to
. . . retract braking”). Those disclosures support Appellant’s position that
initiation of Cahill’s retract braking process depends not on a control signal
in response to the WOW sensor detecting the in-flight status of the wheel,
but rather on a control signal in response to completion of the dragging
brake detection process. Thus, we see error in the Examiner’s finding that
Cahill’s retract braking process begins with an indication from the WOW
sensor when, on its face, Cahill discloses it does not begin until the passing
of some unknown period of time after take-off.
In the end, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection given the
present state of the record. Notably absent from the Examiner’s analysis is
any indication as to what one skilled in the art would have understood from
Cahill’s disclosure as a whole. For instance, the Examiner neglects to
address whether one skilled in the art would have known that Cahill’s
controller and WOW sensor necessarily are capable of initiating a control
signal to simply begin the retract braking process without undertaking the
Appeal 2021-001749
Application 15/904,003

6
additional (and seemingly more complex) step of first detecting the
occurrence of a dragging brake. But that is a question for another day.
Without more from the Examiner, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Nor do we sustain the
rejection of the claims depending from those independent claims given that
the additional references of Bourret, Le-Bouedec, and Salamat as applied to
the dependent claims are not cited to cure the fundamental deficiency in the
references cited against the independent claims.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11, 16 103 Cahill, Marles 1, 11, 16
3, 4, 9, 10,
13, 18, 21
103 Cahill, Marles,
Bourret
3, 4, 9, 10, 13,
18, 21
5, 6, 14, 19,
22
103 Cahill, Marles,
Le-Bouedec
5, 6, 14, 19, 22
7, 8, 15, 20,
23
103 Cahill, Marles,
Salamat
7, 8, 15, 20, 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–16,
18–23

REVERSED