Ex Parte Silkey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2017

12762562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
12/762,562 04/19/2010 Joseph Steven Silkey 10-0041-US-NP 3785
63759 7590 10/30/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH STEVEN SILKEY,
DAVID JAMES SUITER, and BRADLEY ALAN OSBORNE
Appeal 2016-002246
Application 12/762,562
Technology Center 3600
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 24 and 26—32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-002246
Application 12/762,562
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of controlling airflow with multi­
layered plasma actuators. Sole independent claim 24, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
24. A method for controlling airflow, the method comprising:
changing a plasma formed by a number of plasma
actuators in which the number of plasma actuators is configured
to form the plasma in response to a voltage and in which the
number of plasma actuators is associated with a surface, each of
the number of plasma actuators comprising:
a plurality of layers comprising a first number of
layers of a flexible material and a second number of layers
of a dielectric material in which the first number of layers
is interspersed with the second number of layers and in
which the flexible material has a greater flexibility than
the dielectric material;
a first electrode attached to a first layer, in which the
first layer is a surface layer in the first number of layers,
and in which the first electrode is configured to be exposed
to air; and
a second electrode attached to a second layer, in
which the second layer is a layer in one of the first number
of layers and the second number of layers, and in which
the first electrode and the second electrode are configured
to form a plasma in response to the voltage, each of the
number of plasma actuators having a lower number of
electrodes than number of layers in the plurality of layers;
and
modifying the airflow over the surface in response to
changing the plasma.
2
Appeal 2016-002246
Application 12/762,562
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Angelopoulos
Knudsen
Deng
University of Florida
Research Foundation,
Inc. (“UFRF”)
Armstrong
US 5,310,625
US 2004/0196620 A1
US 6,930,497 B2
WO 2009/005895 A2
May 10, 1994
Oct. 7, 2004
Aug. 16, 2005
Jan. 8, 2009
US 7,878,460 B2 Feb. 1,2011
REJECTIONS
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 24 and 26—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over UFRF, Armstrong, and Deng.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over UFRF, Armstrong, Deng, and Knudsen.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over UFRF, Armstrong, Deng, Knudsen, and Angelopoulos.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 as
lacking written description support. See generally Appeal Br. As the merits
of the rejection are not contested, it is summarily affirmed.
3
Appeal 2016-002246
Application 12/762,562
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that UFRF teaches a majority of features of claim
24, including “a method of controlling airflow with ... a number of plasma
actuators” where the plasma actuators have “a first number of layers of
flexible material 27, a second number of layers of a dielectric material 28
with a first electrode 21 attached to the first layer” and that “[t]he first
number of layers is interspersed with the second number of layers.” Final
Act. 3—A. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
have modified each of UFRF’s dielectric layers to be made out of multiple
layers” based on the teachings of Armstrong and Deng or, alternatively,
based on routine skill in the art. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that though UFRF teaches “several layers of a
dielectric substrate,” “UFRF does not disclose variations to a sequence of
insulation layers having a different composition.” Appeal Br. 8. Thus, it is
argued, UFRF does not disclose “a second number of layers of a dielectric
material in which the first number of layers (of the flexible material) is
interspersed with the second number of layers (of the dielectric material)
and in which the flexible material has a greater flexibility than the dielectric
material” as required by claim 24.” Id.1 “Instead, UFRF simply discloses
two adjacent layers of the insulating dielectric material.” Id.
The Examiner replies that UFRF shows “in Figure 14 [that] layers
27,28,29 are interspersed (i.e. 28 in between 27 and 29).” Ans. 3. The
Examiner also replies that “Armstrong is relied on to teach dielectric layers
220, 240 being composed of multiple numbers of layers in alternative
1 Appellants also argue that Armstrong and Deng alone or in combination
with UFRF do not teach these claim elements. Appeal Br. 10—14.
4
Appeal 2016-002246
Application 12/762,562
arrangement (220, 240, Fig. 3) and the dielectric layers separated by other
layers (Fig. 3)” and that “Deng also teaches flexible multilayer dielectric
substrate (Fig. 5A).” Id.
However, none of the Examiner’s statements from the Final Action or
the Answer show how the prior art teaches or suggests “a second number of
layers of a dielectric material in which the first number of layers (of the
flexible material) is interspersed with the second number of layers (of the
dielectric material) and in which the flexible material has a greater
flexibility than the dielectric material” as required by claim 24. Appeal Br.
8. As the Examiner’s rejection does not support a prima facie case of
obviousness for all of the elements of claim 24, we do not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 24 or its dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 24 and 26—32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
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-IN-PART
5