Ex Parte Ramsay

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2013

12237956 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS RAMSAY
____________

Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, RICHARD E. RICE and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

RICE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Ramsay (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-19 and 21-28. App. Br. 5.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 20 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, 10, 13 and 28 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A plasma spoiler mounted on a rear
portion of a vehicle, comprising:
a dielectric substrate formed of a dielectric
material;
a first electrode mounted on the dielectric
substrate so as to be insulated from outside air;
a second electrode mounted on the dielectric
substrate so as to be exposed to outside air and
disposed in a longitudinal position toward a front
of the vehicle relative to the first electrode;
a power source connected to the first and
second electrodes, the power source supplying a
voltage to the electrodes;
a switch disposed between at least one of a
connection between the power source and the first
electrode and the power source and the second
electrode; and
a controller connected to the switch and a
vehicle speed sensor,
wherein said switch is selectively operable
in an on position and an off position, wherein
when said switch is in the on position, the voltage
passes from the power source to the electrodes,
and when the switch is in the off position, the
Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

3
voltage does not pass from the power source to the
electrodes,
the controller actuates the switch to the on
position when a vehicle speed exceeds a trigger
speed, and actuates the switch to the off position
when the vehicle speed is below the trigger speed,
and
the on position of the switch allows a
variable amount of voltage to pass to the
electrodes, and wherein the controller actuates the
switch to increase the amount of voltage passing
through the switch to the electrodes as the speed
increases over the trigger speed.
App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added).

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Takagi US 4,810,022 Mar. 7, 1989
Enloe US 7,380,756 B1 Jun. 3, 2008
Patel US 7,624,941 B1 Dec. 1, 2009

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Patel, Enloe and Takagi.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Patel and Enloe.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1:
Claim 1 calls for a plasma spoiler mounted on a vehicle comprising a
controller connected to a switch and a vehicle speed sensor, wherein “the on
position of the switch allows a variable amount of voltage to pass to the
electrodes, and wherein the controller actuates the switch to increase the
Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

4
amount of voltage passing through the switch to the electrodes as the speed
[of the vehicle] increases over the trigger speed.”
Appellant contends that the cited references do not teach or suggest
these limitations. App. Br. 16. Appellant argues that Patel and Enloe, in
particular, “only disclose directing a fixed amplitude voltage to electrodes of
a plasma actuator.” Id. Appellant acknowledges that Enloe discloses using
a greater spoiling force with high-speed flight applications than with lower-
speed, ground-based applications, but argues that “this disclosure does not
address the changing aerodynamic conditions associated with the
acceleration of any given vehicle” (i.e., “as the speed [of the vehicle]
increases over the trigger speed” as claimed). Id. at 17.
The Examiner’s position is that Enloe teaches varying the voltage of a
plasma actuator, based on Enloe’s disclosure that “the propagation speed of
the discharge is a function of the amplitude of the applied voltage” and
“[t]he higher the voltage, the faster the discharge spreads along the dielectric
surface” (Enloe, col. 7, ll. 64-67) and that “the performance of the actuator
can be increased non-linearly by increasing the amplitude of the applied
voltage” (id. at col. 11, ll. 11-16). Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellant that Enloe does not disclose or suggest a
controller that controls the amount of voltage passing to the electrodes of a
plasma actuator apparatus mounted on a vehicle such that the amount of
voltage increases as the speed of the vehicle increases over a trigger speed as
required by claim 1. As Appellant argues, Enloe discloses that, because the
performance of a plasma actuator apparatus can be increased by increasing
the amplitude of the applied voltage, actuator performance can be scaled-up
“for use in higher, technologically relevant, flight speeds . . . .” Enloe,
Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

5
col. 11, ll. 11-16; see App. Br. 17. The Examiner has not identified, and we
have not found, where Enloe discloses or suggests a controller that controls
the amount of voltage passing to an actuator mounted on a vehicle such that
the amount of voltage increases as the speed of the vehicle increases over a
trigger speed. Nor does the Examiner provide an alternative obviousness
rationale for the controller limitation based on the application of Patel, Enloe
and/or Takagi. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 17, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, Enloe and Takagi. As claims 10 and 28 recite
limitations similar to the controller limitation of claim 1 and the Examiner’s
position as to claims 10 and 28 is the same in response to Appellant’s
arguments as for claim 1 (see Ans. 6; App. Br. 21 and 24), we also do not
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claim 10 and its
dependent claims 11, 12 and 24 as being unpatentable over Patel, Enloe and
Takagi; and claim 28 as being unpatentable over Patel and Enloe.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, “a plasma spoiler received in the space
defined in the rear end [of the body of the vehicle] such that a top surface of
the plasma spoiler is level with a top surface of the rear end surrounding the
space defined in the rear end” and “the plasma spoiler is configured to
deflect an airflow passing over the rear end of the vehicle in an upward
direction away from the vehicle body when connected to the power source.”
Appellant contends that the cited references provide “no reason” for a
plasma actuator disposed in the rear end of the body of the vehicle as recited
in the claim “to operate so as to ‘deflect an airflow passing over the rear end
Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

6
of the vehicle in an upward direction away from the vehicle body.’” App.
Br. 20. The Examiner responds that
Patel et al. discloses at col. 4, lines 38-42 that “the plasma
actuators can be used to eliminate/promote flow separation to
affect lift, drag, and control pitch, roll, and yaw moments
around the control surface depending on how they are placed
and operated.” Such elimination of flow separation is
considered under the heading of boundary flow control and
such promotion of flow separation is considered under the
claimed heading of deflection of airflow ... in an upward
direction.
Ans. 7.
We understand the Examiner’s position to be that utilizing a plasma
actuator to promote flow separation as taught by Patel would necessarily
involve deflection of airflow in an upward direction as claimed. Id.
However, the Examiner has not identified, and we have not found, where
Patel discloses or suggests the use of a plasma actuator disposed in the rear
end of the body of a vehicle to promote flow separation, much less to deflect
airflow in an upward direction. Nor does the Examiner provide an
alternative obviousness rationale for the deflection limitation based on the
application of Patel, Enloe and/or Takagi. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 and its
dependent claims 9, 18, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, Enloe and Takagi. As claims 13 recites a limitation
similar to the deflection limitation of claim 8 and the Examiner’s position as
to claim 13 is the same in response to Appellant’s argument as for claim 8
(see Ans. 6-7; App. Br. 22), we also do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14, 15, 16, 19, 25
and 27, as being unpatentable over Patel, Enloe and Takagi.
Appeal 2011-011488
Application 12/237,956

7
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-19 and 21-28.

REVERSED

hh