Ex Parte Arnaud

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 7, 2010

11601681 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2010)

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