Ex Parte Welsh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2009

10685215 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM A. WELSH
____________________

Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided:1 July 30, 2009
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
William A. Welsh (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 22 and 25-27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to a system for minimizing
in-plane vibration produced in a rotating system of a rotary-wing aircraft.
(Subst. Spec. 1, ll. 3-5.) Claim 22, reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
22. A vibration isolation system for
reducing vibrations in a rotating system rotatable
about an axis of rotation, comprising:
a multiple of independently rotatable masses
coaxially disposed about an axis of rotation of a
rotating system;
a drive system interconnected to each of said
multiple of independently rotatable masses to
independently rotate each of said multiple of
independently rotatable masses about said axis of
rotation; and
a control system in communication with said
drive system to control an angular velocity of at
least one of said multiple of independently
rotatable masses to reduce in-plane vibration of the
rotating system.

Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ueda et al. (as translated) JP 61-164109 Published July 24, 1986

Before us for review is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and
25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ueda.

ISSUE
The Examiner found that Ueda discloses all of the limitations of
Appellant’s claim 22. (Ans. 3-4.) Appellant argues that Ueda’s elements
21a and 21b cannot be considered to be independently rotatable masses.
(App. Br. 6-7.) Therefore, the issue on appeal is:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda
discloses independently rotatable masses?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Ueda discloses a vibration type angular velocity meter using
multiple vibrators, each comprising a wobbling mass member and a
supporting section.

Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

4
(Ueda 2.) Figure 6 of Ueda is reproduced below:

Figure 6 depicts an embodiment having two vibrator units. (Id. at 12.)
2. The device shown in Ueda’s Figure 6 has two wobbling mass
members 21a and 21b elastically supported on case 23 by supporting
sections 22a and 22b, respectively. (Ueda 5, 12.) As indicated by the
direction arrows depicted in Figure 6, the mass members rotate in opposite
directions. (Id. at 5, 12, fig. 6.) The wobbling mass members move in an
orbit around the Z-axis. (See id. at 8, fig. 3.) The device contains an
excitation means for wobbling the mass members. (Id. at 5.)
3. Ueda’s device is utilized for obtaining an attitude control signal
for an aircraft. (Ueda 2.) The device contains an arithmetic operation part
that computes the difference between the frequencies of the vibrators so as
to compute their angular velocities. (Id. at 5.)

Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. (App. Br. 3-7.) We
select claim 22 as the representative claim, and claims 25-27 stand or fall
with claim 22. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
Claim 22 recites “a multiple of independently rotatable masses.”
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Ueda’s elements 21a and 21b
correspond to the recited independently rotatable masses. (App. Br. 6-7.)
Specifically, Appellant contends that Ueda’s Figure 6 illustrates a solid
interface between the different components, and therefore does not show any
structure which provides for rotation. (Id. at 6.) However, Appellant’s
observation merely suggests that Ueda’s mass members do not spin on the
Z-axis. Appellant does not address the two arrows depicted in that figure
which indicate that the masses rotate in opposite directions. As set forth in
our findings above, Ueda’s mass members rotate, or orbit, in opposite
directions around the Z-axis. (Facts 1, 2.) Accordingly, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda discloses
independently rotatable masses as recited in claim 22. Appellant does not
offer persuasive argument or evidence that any other claim limitation is
missing from the Ueda disclosure.
Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

6
Appellant asserts that, because the Examiner relies on the Ueda patent
and a translation of Ueda was not received until receipt of the Answer, “the
record is simply not clear as to the precise facts the Examiner is relying upon
in support of the rejection.” (Reply Br. 2.) Appellant, however, does not
point to any specific aspect of the rejection that remains unclear after receipt
of the translation along with the Examiner’s Answer containing an
explanation of the rejection. Appellant’s mere assertion that the “precise
facts” are not clear does not identify with particularity any error in the
rejection. Further, to the extent that Appellant argues that the rejection
should be reversed due to purported procedural missteps, we note that
procedural matters do not fall within our jurisdiction. See In re Mindick, 371
F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
We sustain the rejection of claim 22, as well as the rejection of claims
25-27 which fall with claim 22.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ueda
discloses independently rotatable masses.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 22 and 25-27 is
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-002774
Application 10/685,215

7

Klh

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009