Ex Parte Frederickson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2014

12123420 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte KIRK C. FREDERICKSON
________________

Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER,
and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Kirk C. Frederickson (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–22. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a directional control arrangement
to provide stabilizing feedback. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A control system comprising:
a control; and
a link connected to said control, said link oriented to
generate a control output in said control in response to a
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

2

deflection caused by vibration, said control output operable to
at least partially resist said deflection caused by vibration.1

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

Cooper US 4,186,622 Feb. 5, 1980
Boehringer US 5,806,806 Sept. 15, 1998

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
Cooper.
Claims 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cooper in view of Boehringer.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–19 as anticipated by Cooper.
(I)
Claim 1 recites, in part:
a link connected to said control, said link oriented to
generate a control output in said control in response to a
deflection caused by vibration, said control output operable to
at least partially resist said deflection caused by vibration.
Appeal Br. 7, Claims App.

(II)
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Cooper, stating:
Cooper teaches a flight control system comprising a tail
rotor flight control (46) and a flexible cable link (Figure 1 -
elements 20, 22, 48, 50 and 52) connected to said control

1 The first element of claim 1 from the Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 7, is “a
control,” but in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter on page 2 of the
Appeal Brief, the first element is “a control link.” Our review of the file
history indicates claim 1 in the Claims Appendix recites this feature
correctly.
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

3

(inherently being connected to the tail structure), said link
oriented to generate a control output in said control in response
to a deflection caused by normal control conditions inherently
including vibration (Column 2: 59-End and Column 3: 1-2),
said control output operable to at least partially resist said
deflection, further comprising a pedal system input (12)
connected to said control through said link to operate said
control.
Ans. 4–5. We reproduce figure 1 of Cooper below.

Figure 1 of Cooper depicts a control system including cables 20, 22 and
bungees 48, 50 connected to a control quadrant 24 that controls a helicopter
tail rotor 46. Figure 1 also discloses centering spring member 52.
The Examiner also states:
Appellant argues that the orientation of the control links
in Cooper are not able to provide a control output. The
Examiner notes that the links are oriented in the same manner
as Appellant's and further the control output is the centering
effect which is in response to vibration during normal operation
as stated above.
Ans. 7. The Examiner also cites various cases, including In re Scrheiber,
128, F.3d 1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) in support of the Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

4

position that the structure recited by claim 1 is disclosed by Cooper, and
therefore the rejection of claim 1 is proper even if Cooper does not disclose
deflection caused by vibration. Ans. 7–8.
(III)
The Appeal Brief includes arguments only for claim 1. Appellant
traverses the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 and refers to the
bungees 48, 50, stating “[b]oth cross-ties are preloaded to cancel each other
out during normal operation not to respond to [deflection].” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant continues, “the links 20, 22 of Cooper cannot get longer or shorter
on each side of the tail because of the direct connection to the quadrants 16
and 24, which do not allow the links to move about them, and because the
cross-ties 48 and 50 allow no slack.” Id. Appellant asserts that the
arrangement in Cooper does not inherently center the system (tail rotor)
because “the cables of Cooper cannot move about the quadrants and because
the cables are preloaded.” Id. In support of this position, Appellant refers to
the presence of the centering spring member 52 (which imposes a centering
force on quadrant 24 in Cooper) as an indication that the components cited
by the Examiner do not perform a centering function because such a
function would not be necessary. Reply Br. 2.
Further regarding inherency, Appellant asserts, “[t]he Examiner
cannot state that, with any certainty beyond probabilities or possibilities that
vibrations that cause deflection are present in Cooper.” Id.
Appellant later states that Cooper does perform a centering function,
but not in response to a deflection caused by vibration as recited. Appellant
states, “[t]he cross-ties are referred to by the Examiner, in reading column 2,
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

5

lines 61-69 and column 3, lines 1-2 of Cooper [sic] center the links for the
pilot's input and not to react to deflection.” Appeal Br. 5.
Additionally, Appellant argues that the “orientation” feature recited in
claim 1 is not disclosed by Cooper. Appellant states:
Moreover, Applicant also specifically recites a link
oriented to generate a control output in said control in response
to a deflection caused by vibration. That is, Cooper simply
provides no teaching whatsoever with regards to the orientation
of a link to provide the control output as also claimed by
Applicant. Cooper’s links are in essence ‘disoriented’ from
giving the control output as stated hereinabove. Applicant
respectfully submits that the claims are properly allowable for
this reason as well.
Id (underlining omitted).
(IV)
Regarding whether Cooper provides a centering affect, Cooper states:
I have added preloaded bungee cross-ties 48-50 to the system
by adding preloaded bungee or spring member 48 connecting
cable 20 to the right arm 32 of quadrant 24, and preloaded
bungee or spring 50 connecting cable 22 to the left arm 28 of
quadrant 24. With this bungee crosstie arrangement, bungees
48 and 50, which may be rubber springs, are preferably equally
preloaded so as to have cancelling and centering effects on the
control system during usual control operation.
Cooper, col. 2, l. 62–col. 3, l. 2 (emphasis added). Further, as noted above,
Appellant, at one point, appears to agree that Cooper performs centering.
Appeal Br. 5. With regard to Appellant’s reference to centering spring
member 52 as performing the centering function (rather than the bungees 48
and 50), we note that Cooper indicates that the centering spring member 52
is “third chance redundant” to the cables 20 and 22 (which are connected to
the bungees 48 and 50). Cooper, col. 3, ll. 21–29. In other words, the
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

6

centering spring member 52 performs at least one of the same tasks as the
cables 20, 22 and bungees 48, 50 perform. This fact is supportive of the
Examiner’s finding that the cables and bungee disclosed by Cooper resist
deflection. Ans. 5. Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding
on this issue, that is. the bungees 48 and 50 of Cooper provide a centering
effect on the tail.
Regarding Appellant’s argument, “the Examiner cannot state that,
with any certainty beyond probabilities or possibilities that vibrations that
cause deflection are present in Cooper,” Reply Br. 2, we note that claim 1
does not recite vibrations per se. Rather, claim 1 recites structure that
responds in a certain way to deflection caused by vibrations. We believe the
Examiner’s reliance on Schreiber is appropriate, and whether Cooper
discloses that vibrations cause deflection is moot so long as Cooper discloses
the structure, as recited in claim 1, that is capable of performing the recited
function to “at least partially resist said deflection caused by vibration.” As
for whether Cooper discloses an output that is “in response to deflection,”
we agree with the Examiner that the cables 20, 22 and bungees 48, 50 in
Cooper resist deflection, and therefore this recited feature is disclosed by
Cooper. Ans. 4–5.
As for whether Cooper discloses “the orientation of a link to provide
the control output,” Appeal Br. 5, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
structure in Cooper is not oriented as recited in claim 1. In the context of the
claims, “oriented to” is used in the same way as “arranged to.” Appellant
states “Cooper's links are in essence ‘disoriented’ from giving the control
output as stated hereinabove,” id., but Appellant has not pointed to any
specific meaning of “oriented,” as it is recited in claim 1, that would exclude
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

7

a configuration such as is disclosed by Cooper. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Cooper discloses a link
oriented to generate a control output as recited in claim 1. Thus, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–7 depending therefrom as anticipated
by Cooper. We also sustain the rejection of claims 8–19 as anticipated by
Cooper.
The rejection of claims 20–22 as obvious over Cooper and Boehringer
As for the arguments raised on page 3 of the Reply Brief regarding
whether Cooper discloses feedback and whether Cooper discloses the
features of claims 16 and 22, these arguments are not set forth in the Appeal
Brief. Such arguments are not ordinarily addressed by the Board. See Ex
Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“conclud[ing]
that the regulations set out in 37 C.F.R. § 41, Practice Before the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences, do not require the Board to consider such
belated arguments”). Accordingly, we will not address these newly raised
arguments.
Appellant does not make separate arguments for claims 20–22 in the
Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims
inasmuch as the rejection of all the independent claims from which they
depend, respectively, is sustained.

DECISION
Although we have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments,
we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the Examiner are in error.
This being the case, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 as anticipated
Appeal 2012-009533
Application 12/123,420

8

by Cooper and the rejection of claims 20–22 as unpatentable over Cooper
and Boehringer are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Ssc