Goodrich Control Systems

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021002545 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/711,151 09/21/2017 Thomas GIETZOLD 93739US01 (U310981US) 7826 87521 7590 03/23/2022 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER DHAKAL, BICKEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2846 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS GIETZOLD and JOSHUA PARKIN Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Sept. 21, 2017 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2020 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 7, 2021 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 1, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Goodrich Control Systems as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a power supply apparatus for an aerospace actuator. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, one of the problems with electrical power transmission equipment in aircraft is the weight involved. Id. ¶ 8. The Specification states that storing excess electrical energy in an energy storage device, configured to discharge stored energy as electrical energy to motor drive electronics when required, allows higher peak powers to be delivered than could be directly supplied from the aircraft power grid alone. Id. ¶ 7. The Specification states that the wires and other components carrying power to the motor drive electronics can be reduced in size since the required current in the wires and other components would be significantly reduced, providing a weight saving system compared to known systems. Id. ¶ 10. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An aircraft comprising at least one actuator, an aircraft power grid, and a power supply apparatus for supplying power to the actuator, the power supply apparatus comprising: motor drive electronics for actuation of a motor for control of the aerospace actuator; and an energy storage device; wherein the motor drive electronics are configured to: receive input electrical energy from the aircraft power grid; receive electrical energy from the energy storage device; and provide electrical energy from the grid and/or from the energy storage device to the motor; and Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 3 wherein the energy storage device is configured to store at least one of: excess electrical energy supplied to the motor drive electronics from the grid; and regenerated electrical energy from the motor drive electronics; and wherein the energy storage device is configured to discharge the stored energy as electrical energy to the motor drive electronics when required for actuation of the motor for control of the aerospace actuator; and wherein the aircraft comprises current carrying components that convey electrical energy from the aircraft power grid to the motor drive electronics, the current carrying components having a size that is reduced compared to the size of current carrying components needed to supply the peak power levels demanded by the actuator. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix) (disputed limitation italicized). Claim 9, the other independent claim pending in this Appeal, is directed to a method for supplying power to an aerospace actuator of an aircraft and similarly recites “current carrying components . . . having a size that is reduced compared to the size of current carrying components needed to supply the peak power levels demanded by the actuator.” Id. at 11. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 4 the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After thoroughly considering Appellant’s arguments and evidence, including Appellant’s objective evidence of nonobviousness, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the claims pending in this Appeal. The Examiner maintains the following rejection:3 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-6, 8-15 103 Sheahan,4 Merkel5 The Examiner finds Sheahan discloses an aircraft power grid for supplying power to an actuator and an energy storage device configured to store excess electrical energy supplied from the grid and configured to discharge the stored energy to the motor drive electronics when required for actuation of a motor for control of an aerospace actuator using current carrying components. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner finds Sheahan is silent regarding the current carrying components having a reduced size compared to current carrying components needed to supply the peak power levels demanded by the actuator. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds Merkel discloses current carrying components having a reduced size compared to current carrying components needed to supply peak power levels demanded by an actuator. Id. at 6-7 (citing Merkel ¶ 60). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use a small diameter cable as indicated by Merkel to 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-6 and 18-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. 4 US 2010/0109581 A1, pub. May 6, 2010. 5 US 2012/0283891 A1, pub. Nov. 8, 2012. Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 5 power the actuator in Sheahan’s system to ensure proper dimensions of all cables forming the power distribution network. Id. at 7. Appellant contends the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because (1) Sheahan’s energy storage device is not dedicated to the supply of one of the actuators, thus Sheahan’s grid must be capable of supplying all power levels, and (2) Merkel teaches increasing the cable diameter for an application rather than decreasing cable diameter. Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. We do not agree. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Sheahan discloses a power grid having an energy storage device configured to discharge the stored energy to supply energy to an actuator when required. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s finding that Sheahan does not explicitly disclose any relation between the capacity and the size of the wire or the cable. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6. Instead, Appellant’s position is that none of Sheahan’s current carrying components can have a size that is reduced because Sheahan’s bus must have the capability of handling the combined power of the main power source and the energy storage device. Reply Br. 2. However, the record does not support Appellant’s assertion that Sheahan’s current carrying component supplying energy from the energy storage device to an actuator cannot be reduced in size because all of the current carrying components in Sheahan’s bus are the same size. Merkel teaches the proper dimensions of all cables forming a power distribution network ensure proper operation of all applications. Merkel ¶ 60. As the Examiner finds, Merkel relates the diameter of a wire or cable to the power requirement of an application. Ans. 6. Merkel provides the Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 6 example of using larger diameters to an application that requires more power. Merkel ¶ 60. Thus, even if Sheahan’s current carrying components are all the same size as Appellant asserts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use proper dimensions in Sheahan’s current carrying component supplying energy from the energy storage device to an actuator based on the power that the application requires. Stated another way, based on Merkel’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a current carrying component of reduced size for a lower power application in Sheahan’s system. Appellant’s assertion (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3) that Merkel’s disclosure is limited to larger diameter cables for delivering more power does not adequately explain why the converse would not have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. In a determination of obviousness, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.”); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“[A] reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.”). Merkel generally refers to “proper dimensions” indicating that cable dimensions are proportional to the power requirement of the application, thus larger diameter for a higher power requirement also means a smaller diameter cable is proper for a lower power requirement. Moreover, the Examiner’s position that the proportionality of cable dimensions to power requirements of an application was known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention is supported by Appellant’s Specification which Appeal 2021-002545 Application 15/711,151 7 acknowledges that current demands require particular diameter cable installations. Spec. ¶ 9. Accordingly, after considering all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sheahan in view of Merkel for the reasons discussed above and those provided in the Final Action and Answer. SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8- 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the above reasons. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8-15 103 Sheahan, Merkel 1-6, 8-15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED