Ex Parte ArnaudDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 7, 201011601681 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte GILLES LOUIS ARNAUD ____________________ Appeal 2009-006320 Application 11/601,681 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: June 7, 2010 ____________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2 being unpatentable over Dornier (US 2,152,033, issued March 28, 1939); 3 finally rejecting claim 3 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dornier 4 and Green (US 5,374,162, issued Dec. 20, 1994); and finally rejecting claim5 Appeal 2009-006320 Application 11/601,681 2 5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dornier and Carter (US 1 2002/0005458 A1, publ. Jan. 17, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 2 U.S.C. § 6(b). 3 We REVERSE. 4 Claim 1 recites: 5 1. A method of reducing a hinge 6 moment of a flap (1) on a helicopter rotor blade 7 (3), the method comprising the steps of: 8 providing the flap with a profile that 9 includes an inner surface (9) and an outer surface 10 (10) that have, beyond 25% of a chord (CO) of the 11 flap, shapes that are not concave; 12 providing the flap with a first trailing edge 13 (8) that has a main angle (α) between 10° and 30°; 14 setting a longitudinal axis of rotation (4) of 15 the flap at a first distance (C1) from a first leading 16 edge (7) of the flap, the first distance being 17 between 15% and 35% of the chord of the flap; 18 attaching the flap (1) to a trailing edge (2) of 19 the helicopter rotor blade (3) so that the flap turns 20 about the longitudinal axis of rotation (4); and 21 steering the flap relative to the helicopter 22 rotor blade during rotation of the rotor blade while 23 preserving an aerodynamic efficiency of the flap. 24 The contentions of the Appellant, and the findings and reasoning of 25 the Examiner, are aptly summarized in the Examiner’s Answer: 26 In regard to claims 1 and 11, [the Appellant] 27 substantially only argues one point, that the 28 position of the axis of rotation (4) of the flap is not 29 made obvious by Dornier. In claim 1, the claimed 30 position of the axis is behind the leading edge of 31 the flap a distance between 15% and [35%] of the 32 Appeal 2009-006320 Application 11/601,681 3 chord length of the flap. In claim 11, the claimed 1 distance is about 25% of the chord length. Dornier 2 fails to specify a distance from the front edge of 3 flap 2 to the rotation point 3, but clearly some 4 distance inherently exists and the Examiner 5 maintains in the rejections that it would be obvious 6 for this distance to be within the claimed range of 7 distances. It is well known engineering practice in 8 the art to adjust the position of rotation of flaps to 9 provide desired characteristics (e.g. amount of flap 10 displacement, energy needed to actuate flaps, 11 amount of control force, etc.) in particular 12 situations. This is especially considered a valid 13 assumption to make in the present case, because 14 the claims themselves illustrate that the particular 15 distance is not critical, since there is a relatively 16 large range (15%-[35%]) of distances being 17 claimed as acceptable positions of the axis. 18 (Ans. 4). 19 The Examiner does not identify one or more result-effective variables 20 which one of ordinary skill in the art might have had reason to optimize by 21 trying a distance falling within the range of claim 1 or meeting the value 22 recited in claim 11. At most, the Examiner provides examples of parameters 23 which one of ordinary skill in the art might have sought to optimize or 24 balance in designing and mounting a flap. With no identified result-25 effective variable to optimize, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had 26 no more reason to balance the parameters identified by the Examiner in such 27 a manner as to select a distance falling within the range of claim 1 or 28 meeting the value recited in claim 11 than to balance the parameters so as to 29 choose a distance outside the range of claim 1. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 30 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). The apparent reason articulated by the Examiner 31 for setting a longitudinal axis of rotation of a flap at a first distance from a 32 Appeal 2009-006320 Application 11/601,681 4 first leading edge of the flap, the first distance being between 15% and 35% 1 of the chord of the flap as recited in claim 1 or about 25% of the chord of the 2 flap as recited in claim 11, is conclusory. We do not sustain the rejections of 3 claim 1 or claim 11, or of dependent claims 2, 4 and 6-10, under § 103(a) as 4 being unpatentable over Dornier. 5 Green discloses a blade with an elliptical leading edge. (Green, col. 5, 6 ll. 18-22). Carter discloses a blade with an elliptical trailing edge. (Carter 2, 7 para. 0021). Green does not make up the deficiencies in the teachings of 8 Dornier for purposes of the rejection of claim 3 and Carter does not make up 9 the deficiencies in the teachings of Dornier for purposes of the rejection of 10 claim 5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under § 103(a) as being 11 unpatentable over Dornier and Green nor the rejection of claim 5 under 12 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dornier and Carter. 13 14 DECISION 15 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11. 16 17 REVERSED 18 19 20 Klh 21 22 23 YOUNG & THOMPSON 24 209 MADISON STREET 25 SUITE 500 26 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 27 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation