Ex Parte Chankaya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

13007099 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
13/007,099 01/14/2011 Kurt M. Chankaya 7134.3021.002 5936
16139 7590
Reising Ethington PC
755 W. Big Beaver Road
Suite 1850
Troy, MI 48084
EXAMINER
PEREZ BERMUDEZ, YARITZA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 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):
j ones @ reising. com
U S PTOmail @ reising. com
USPTOmail@gmx.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT M. CHANKAYA and BRANT H. MAINES
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-30, and 32-36.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an aerodynamic force sensing apparatus and a
method for calculating air data. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Claim 1. An aerodynamic force sensing apparatus for
providing an air data computer with information to calculate air
data, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of vanes supportable in a vane array extending
from a distal end of an airfoil of an aircraft; and
1 The rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (p. 2).
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
a first sensor connected to a first vane of the vane array
and configured to sense the response of the first vane of the
vane array to aerodynamic forces and to transmit corresponding
signals to an air data computer (ADC) for use by the ADC in
calculating air data.
Goodson
The References
US 4,671,473 June 9, 1987
Brix US 6,345,790 B1 Feb. 12, 2002
Volk US 6,766,981 B2 July 27, 2004
Kendall US 2008/0001028 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
McIntyre US 2010/0100260 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Le Tron US 6,073,084 June 6, 2000
Pap WO 99/32963 A1 July 1, 1999
Han WO 2010/008133 A1 Jan. 21,2010
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
9, 15-21, 23-25, and 32-36 over Brix in view of Volk, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10,
26, and 27 over Brix in view of Volk and Pap, claim 8 over Brix in view of
Volk, Pap and Han, claim 12 over Brix in view of Volk, Pap, McIntyre and
Le Tron, claims 13 and 14 over Brix in view of Volk and Goodson, claim 28
over Brix in view of Volk and Kendall, claim 29 over Brix in view of Volk,
Kendall and Pap, and claim 30 over Brix in view of Volk, McIntyre and
Le Tron.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1 and 25.2 Claim 1 requires a first sensor connected to a
2 The Examiner does not rely upon additional references applied to
dependent claims to remedy the deficiency in the references applied to the
independent claims as to the limitations in the independent claims (Final
Act. 9-26).
2
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
first vane of a vane array extending from a distal end of an aircraft airfoil,
the sensor being configured to sense the response of the first vane to
aerodynamic forces, and claim 25 requires connecting a sensor to a first vane
of a plurality of vanes extending from an aircraft airfoil, and sensing the
response of the first vane to aerodynamic forces.
Brix discloses a subsonic aircraft “equipped with individually
rotatable winglets [(5A-D)] at the wing tips thereof, in order to reduce drag
during cruise flight, to minimize the dangers posed by wing tip vortices to
following aircraft during take-off and landing, and to minimize the total
wingspan during ground operations, with respective different positions of
the winglets [i.e., broadly spread during take-off and landing, narrowly
spread during cruise flight, and tilted maximum upward or downward during
taxiing and parking (col. 7,11. 1-20; Figs. 1C-1E)]” (Abstract; Fig. 1A).
“The individual winglets 5 can be embodied in the form of small lifting
wings or airfoil wings with a relative thickness, aspect ratio and sweep angle
similar to the main lifting wing” (col. 5,11. 21-23). Each winglet (5) is
connected to or integral with a rotation segment (3) of a rotation body (2)
mounted at a tip of a main lifting wing (1) (col. 4,11. 31-32, 49-50; col. 5,
11. 1-13). A sensor (11) can be mounted on the rotation segment (3) “to
measure the local incident air flow or relative wind 8, and to thereby provide
signals for controlling or regulating the pitch angle adjustment of the
respective winglet 5” (col. 6,11. 38^18).
Volk discloses “a control system for alleviating a gust load on an
aircraft wing” (col. 1,11. 16-17). Volk teaches (col. 1,11. 18-35):
Gust load alleviation has been a major problem for
aircraft designers. Gust loads are created on a wing when an
aircraft encounters an upward or downward moving pocket of
3
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
air, more commonly referred to as turbulence. These sudden
wind gusts induce very rapid changes in the wing angle of
attack, which translates into sudden increases in the wing lift.
The increase in wing lift corresponds to a sudden escalation in
the bending moment on the wing structure that can exceed its
load-carrying capability. In the absence of a control system for
alleviating gust loads, the wing structure must be strengthened
to accommodate the increased bending moment. This
strengthening means higher structural weight and decreased
aircraft performance. However, reducing or alleviating the gust
load corresponds to a reduction in the bending moment on the
wing. If gust loads can be alleviated to levels at or below
maneuver load thresholds, aircraft weight can be substantially
reduced, resulting in improved aircraft performance such as an
increase in range or payload.
Volk uses a vertical motion sensor (54) mounted on an aircraft wing (12)
adjacent to its tip (34) to measure the tip (34)’s vertical motion caused by a
gust load (18) on the tip (34), generates a sensor (54) output signal (56) in
response to which a sensor signal processor (58) generates a deflector
control signal (60), and uses a deflector controller (64) to regulate, in
response to the deflector control signal (60), alternate deployment and
retraction of a wing-mounted deflector mechanism (28) into and out of the
airstream (26) to twist the wing (12) to a degree and for a duration which
counteracts an increase in bending moment on the wing (12) caused by the
gust load (18) (col. 5,11. 18-34; col. 11,11. 3-35; Figs. 1, 4A, 4B). “The
deflector mechanism 28 may effect either the upward or the downward
twisting motion 50 on the wing 12 depending on whether the gust load 18
effects an upward or a downward vertical motion of the wing tip 34 as
sensed by the vertical motion sensor 54” (col. 7,11. 44^18).
4
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
The Examiner concludes that “[g]iven the teachings of Volk of a
sensor mounted on the wing (top of the wing tip) measuring a response of a
wing to aerodynamic forces acting upon the wing it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skilled [sic] in the art at the time the
invention was made to provide winglets/vanes of the system of Brix, which
are characterized as small lifting wings or airfoil wings, with sensors as the
one taught by Volk located at the top of each of the winglets in order to
provide the system of Brix with a means to measure/sense a response of the
vane/wing to gust load/aerodynamic force” (Ans. 6).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent
reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Volk uses the vertical motion sensor (54) to prevent a gust load (18)
from causing sudden escalation in the bending moment on an airplane wing
structure which can exceed the wing structure’s load-carrying capability
(col. 1,11. 25-27; col. 5,11. 12-18). The Examiner does not establish that
Brix’s winglets (5) are subject to sudden escalation in bending moment
which can exceed their load-carrying capability such that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had an apparent reason to connect Volk’s vertical
motions sensor (54) to Brix’s winglet (5).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 9, 15-21, 23-25,
and 32-36 over Brix in view of Volk, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 26, and 27 over
Brix in view of Volk and Pap, claim 8 over Brix in view of Volk, Pap and
Han, claim 12 over Brix in view of Volk, Pap, McIntyre and Le Tron,
5
Appeal 2017-005223
Application 13/007,099
claims 13 and 14 over Brix in view of Volk and Goodson, claim 28 over
Brix in view of Volk and Kendall, claim 29 over Brix in view of Volk,
Kendall and Pap, and claim 30 over Brix in view of Volk, McIntyre and
Le Tron are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6