Ex Parte Muller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12977397 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/977,397
96061 7590
Winstead PC (Dell)
PO Box 131851
FILING DATE
12/23/2010
09/14/2016
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald M. Muller
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.
43738-P053US 9279
EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
delldocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD M. MULLER
Appeal2014-008838
Application 12/977,397
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronald M. Muller (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing two or more momentum wheels arranged for
rotation on a spacecraft in a momentum-canceling set;
Appeal2014-008838
Application 12/977,397
causing the two or more momentum wheels in the
momentum-canceling set to rotate at momentum-canceling
speeds; and
reducing rotational speed of a momentum wheel in the
momentum-canceling set to initiate a slew of the spacecraft.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shah
Hennigan
us 6,003,818
us 6,523,785
REJECTIONS
Dec. 21, 1999
Feb.25,2003
I. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
II. Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hennigan or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hennigan and Shah.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner detennines that claim 3 is indefinite because it is
unclear if the "'momentum-canceling speeds' [recited in claim 3 is] the same
as the one claimed in claim 1." Final Act. 2.
Noting that claim 3 "does not require the momentum-canceling speeds
to be the same momentum-canceling speeds recited in independent claim 1,"
Appellant argues that claim 3 is unambiguous. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant is
correct. As claim 3 does not require the same momentum-canceling speeds
as claim 1, the meaning of claim 3 is clear.
2
Appeal2014-008838
Application 12/977,397
We do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 3 as
indefinite.
Rejection II
Appellant argues claims 1-12 together. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10. We
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-12
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Hennigan and
Shah disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Shah "show[ s] that momentum wheels do
have the capability to perform slewing."1 Final Act. 3 (citing Shah, abstract,
Fig. 4).
Appellant contends that "the Examiner has not demonstrated that any
reference, alone or in combination with other references, discloses 'reducing
rotational speed of a momentum wheel in the momentum-canceling set to
initiate a slew."' Appeal Br. 9. Appellant's contention attacks the
references separately and not their combined teachings. The rejection relies
upon Hennigan for reducing rotational speed of a momentum wheel (See
Final Act. 3; see also Hennigan 2:52-57) and Shah for use of momentum
wheels to initiate slew. Final Act. 3. Nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further contends that "[a]t most, Shah discloses creating
'wheel torques that modify the attitude of the spacecraft 20' by accelerating
reaction wheels." Appeal Br. 9 (citing Shah, 5:44--54); see also Reply Br. 3.
1 "For purposes of this patent application, slew refers to rotation of an object
such as a spacecraft about an axis thereof." Spec. ,-r 2.
3
Appeal2014-008838
Application 12/977,397
Based on this contention, Appellant argues that "the combination of
Hennigan and Shah fails to disclose 'reducing rotational speed of a
momentum wheel in the momentum-canceling set to initiate a slew' as
required by independent claim 1." Id. at 9-10.
Shah states:
Control logic 34 accepts attitude measurements from attitude
sensors, shown generally as block 100, rotational rate
measurements from rate sensors, shown generally as block 102,
and desired attitude signals, shown as block 104. The desired
attitude signals may be commanded from a ground station not
shown or may be produced from an on-board algorithm. Control
logic 34 develops wheel torque commands for reaction wheel
system 22. These commands create wheel torques that modify
the attitude of spacecraft 20 through spacecraft dynamics, shown
generally by block 106.
Shah 5 :44--54 (emphasis omitted). As correctly noted by the Examiner
(Ans. 5), this paragraph is not limited to torque commands which only
accelerate the reaction wheels. Thus, Appellant's argument is unconvincing.
l\1oreover, we agree with the Examiner that "[ o ]ne skilled in the art would
realize that momentum wheels have various rotational speeds that are either
added or reduced in order to control the satellite." Id.
Appellant raises new arguments in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 3-
4. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2), lacking a showing of good
cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the Reply Brief which are
not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer.
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-
12 which depend therefrom as unpatentable over Hennigan and Shah.
Having made this determination, we need not consider the Examiner's
alternative anticipation analysis.
4
Appeal2014-008838
Application 12/977,397
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hennigan, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hennigan and Shah is AFFRIMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5