Ex Parte Kelm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

12746806 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121746,806 08/03/2010
530 7590 08/30/2016
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roland Kelm
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AIRBUS 3.3-201 1972
EXAMINER
BENEDIK, JUSTIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND KELM
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant Roland Kelm1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 13, and 15-18.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Airbus Operations
GmbH. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 11, 12, and 14 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed "to a wingtip extension for reducing wake
vortices of aircraft." Spec. 1:2--4. Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent.
Appeal Br. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A wingtip extension for a wing of an aircraft for reducing
of wake vortices, comprising:
a leading edge at least partially being substantially
straight; and
a trailing edge configured to be affixable to a connection
region of the wing;
wherein a straight section of the leading edge comprises a
leading-edge sweep angle exceeding the leading-edge sweep
angle of the wing;
wherein a local depth of the wingtip extension corresponds
to a local depth of the wing in the connection region;
wherein a local depth of the wingtip extension gradually
decreases between a connecting region for connection to the
wing and the opposite end of the wingtip extension [sic]
wherein the wingtip is configured such that a wingtip
vortex arising from the wingtip is influenced by a bursting vortex
core such that the wingtip vortex starts to decay; and
wherein a cross-sectional profile of the wingtip extension
is substantially flat or at least at the leading edge is tapered to a
point.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Van Dam
Rudolph
us 4,776,542
us 5,039,032
2
Oct. 11, 1988
Aug. 13, 1991
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rudolph.
2. Claims 1-10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rudolph and Van Dam.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
OPINION
The Rejection of Claims 15-18 As Anticipated by Rudolph
The Examiner finds that Rudolph discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 15 and claims 16-18 which depend from claim 15. Final
Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that the "limitation that the
wingtip is influenced by a bursting vortex core such that the wingtip vortex
starts to decay is an effect caused by [Rudolph's] structure and method of
affixing the wingtip extension to the wing of the invention." Id. at 3. The
Examiner further explains:
Even though Rudolph does not mention vortex burst,
Rudolph['s] disclosed structure meets the structure claimed and
the method steps of affixing the wingtip extension to the wing
and further would be configured to perform the intended
use/ effect. Further the vortex created by the wingtip of an
aircraft does naturally start to decay as it travels away from the
aircraft. In this interpretation any wingtip is configured to allow
for decay of the wingtip vortices.
Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
In response, Appellant argues that Rudolph
describes that a stable leading vortex may be triggered on the
upper surface of the small extension member 12A. (Rudolph
col.7 11.36-42.) There is no[] description whatsoever in Rudolph
about causing a [ v ]ortex to burst. Still further, there is no
disclosure in Rudolph about causing a vortex to burst in a region
between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the wingtip
extension. Finally, there is no description in Rudolph about an
arising wingtip vortex being influenced by the bursting core of
the vortex to such an extent as to cause decay of the wingtip
vortex.
Appeal Br. 8.
In contrast to the Examiner's statement that "the wingtip is influenced
by a bursting vortex core," claim 15 requires that the bursting core of the
vortex influences an arising wingtip vortex, not the wingtip. Compare Ans.
3 with claim 15. While Rudolph discloses a stable leading edge vortex
which retains lift up to high angles of attack (Rudolph 7:36-40), and this
leading edge vortex will naturally burst and decay (Ans. 3), the Examiner
does not identify where Rudolph discloses that this leading edge vortex, or
any other vortex created by the wings or wingtips, (1) causes a vortex to
burst in a region between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the wingtip
extension, and (2) an arising wingtip vortex is influenced by the bursting
core of the vortex to such an extent as to cause decay of the wingtip vortex,
as recited by claim 15.
Based on the present record, Rudolph fails to anticipate the subject
matter recited in claim 15 and claims 16-18 which depend from claim 15.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 15-18 are not sustained.
4
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
The Re} ection of Claims 1-10 and 13
As Unpatentable Over Rudolph and Van Dam
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite, in part, that "a cross-sectional
profile of the wingtip extension is substantially flat or at least at the leading
edge is tapered to a point." The Examiner finds that this limitation is
disclosed by Van Dam, stating that Figures 1 a and 1 b illustrate "the leading
edge of a wing tip to be tapered to a point." Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3
("Appellant states that the leading edge needs to be tapered to a point but
does not specify the manner in which the leading edge is tapered. In Van
Dam it is shown that the curvature of the leading edge is tapered to a point
as is also the leading edge tapered as you go toward the end of the wing
longitudinally shown in Fig. 1 b."). The Examiner also states that "all cross
sections taken are of a single plane and inherently flat." Id.
In response, Appellant argues that Figure 3, not Figures la and lb,
illustrates the cross section profile of wingtip extension 18, and shows "a
rounded leading edge 24 and a sharp trailing edge 26." Reply Br. 7-8.
According to Figure 3, Van Dam does not disclose wingtip extension 18
having a substantially flat cross-sectional profile, as recited in claims 1 and
13. In addition, contrary to the Examiner's findings, Figures la and lb show
the top surface of wingtip extension 18, not leading edge 24. Figure 1 shows
that leading edge 24 does not taper to a point. Rudolph and Van Dam do not
disclose all of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 13. For this reason, we
cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1 and 13, or
claims 2-10 and 12 which depend from claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-006438
Application 12/746,806
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10, 13,
and 15-18 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6