Ex Parte Hanchey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2012

11469701 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

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.
11/469,701 09/01/2006 Jefferson Michael Hanchey 000479.00180 6847
22907 7590 11/14/2012
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
XAVIER, VALENTINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JEFFERSON MICHAEL HANCHEY and
MICHAEL WAYNE MAJORS
____________________

Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 9-13, 15, 17-22, and 24-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to automatic flight control
systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A jet aircraft automatic flight control system comprising:
a flight control input device configured to receive an
automatic flight control command from a user;
a low duty cycle motor attached to a flight control
surface that controls the altitude of the jet aircraft; and
a computer device configured to monitor the duty cycle
of the low duty cycle motor and generate signals that drive the
low duty cycle motor to implement the automatic flight control
command without exceeding the duty cycle.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Korte
Nixon
Dickie
Doyama
McKeown
US 4,066,945
US 4,378,518
US 5,753,983
US 6,232,730 B1
US 6,325,331 B1
Jan. 3, 1978
Mar. 29, 1983
May 19, 1998
May 15, 2001
Dec. 4, 2001
Murphy
Cartmell
Wang
Sutardja
US 2003/0154550 A1
US 2004/0078121 A1
US 2004/0098185 A1
US 2004/0196018 A1
Aug. 21, 2003
Apr. 22, 2004
May 20, 2004
Oct. 7, 2004
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

3

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nixon, Murphy, and Sutardja. Ans. 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and Cartmell. Ans. 5.
Claims 3, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and Korte. Ans. 6.
Claim 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and Wang. Ans. 7.
Claims 11 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and Doyama. Ans. 8.
Claims 13, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and McKeown. Ans. 8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nixon, Murphy, Sutardja, and Dickie. Ans. 9.

ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 24
a. Claims 1 and 4
The Examiner found that Nixon discloses a jet aircraft automatic
flight control system having all limitations of claim 1 except (a) that it is a
“low duty cycle motor” that is attached to a flight control surface that
controls the altitude of the jet aircraft; and (b) “a computer device
configured to monitor the duty cycle of the low duty cycle motor and
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

4
generate signals that drive the low duty cycle motor to implement the
automatic flight control command without exceeding the duty cycle.” Ans.
3-4. The Examiner further found that Murphy discloses a low duty cycle
motor and that Sutardja discloses a computer device configured to perform
the functions recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner concluded:
To provide the motor having a low duty cycle rating taught by
Murphy et al for operating the ailerons of Nixon would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a low
current usage and thereby reduce the infrastructure for
activating the motor, since all the claimed elements were known
in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined
these elements as claimed by known methods with no change in
their respective functions, and the combination would have
yielded nothing more than predictable results of low current
usage.
Ans. 4. The Examiner further concluded that it would have been obvious to
include Sutardja’s duty cycle limiter in the system of Nixon as modified
with Murphy “in order to prevent the motor from exceeding a duty cycle
limit for the well-known advantage of lower power usage.” Ans. 4.
Upon consideration of all evidence of record in this case, we
determine that the Examiner has made out a prima facie case of obviousness
for claims 1 and 4. The Examiner found, and we agree, that adding
Murphy’s low duty cycle motor and Sutardja’s duty cycle limiter to Nixon’s
control system amounts to little more than a simple combination by known
methods to give a predictable outcome, and that such is well within the
capability of one having ordinary skill in the art. We determine that the
Examiner articulated reasoning with sufficient rational underpinning to show
that it would have been obvious to combine Nixon, Murphy, and Sutardja in
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

5
the manner indicated. Our decision thus turns on whether Appellants’
arguments have overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Appellants argue that (i) modifying Nixon to control its ailerons with
Murphy’s low duty cycle motor would result in an inoperable aircraft system
having limited steering capabilities (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-5); and (ii)
Sutardja fails to disclose a system configured to “generate signals” (App.
Br. 11). We consider each of these arguments in turn.
(i) Aileron control by low duty cycle motor
Appellants argue that “ailerons have to be able to move frequently to
adequately control an aircraft” and that controlling them with low duty cycle
motors “would result in a control system that could not control the aircraft
about the roll axis.” App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue
that this combination would unacceptably limit the ability to control the
aircraft during, for example, turbulent weather or collision avoidance. App.
Br. 9. Appellants point out that Murphy recommends using a high duty
cycle motor in a “device… intended to be used repetitively” and argue that
use of a low duty cycle motor in an application requiring “relatively frequent
movement” would result in “destruction of the motor.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants cite U.S. Pat. No. 4,555,974 as an example of a servo
motor that controls an aileron and argue that one could have “no expectation
of success” in replacing it with a “relatively small” low duty cycle motor.
App. Br. 10-11.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that “[i]f Nixon’s
ailerons are unable to be controlled using a low duty cycle motor, it is
unclear how Applicant’s aileron is controlled using a low duty cycle motor
in a functioning manner.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also argues that “Nixon
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

6
does not disclose the frequency at which the ailerons are operated.” Ans. 10.
In reply, Appellants argue that “aileron” is not recited in any claims and that
“[t]he present application describes embodiments that use low duty cycle
motors attached to trim tabs.” Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants also argue that
“[o]ne skilled in the art would appreciate that there cannot be a limit on how
frequently a primary control surface operates” so that a pilot is not “forced to
risk exceeding the duty cycle… and risk burning out the motor and having
no ability to further control the aileron.” Reply Br. 4-5.
Appellants’ arguments in response do not overcome the prima facie
case, principally because they are unsupported by objective evidence of
record. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that a low
duty cycle motor, specifically “a motor having a duty cycle less than about
15%,”1 would not be able to drive an aileron without unacceptably limiting
the ability to control the aircraft. Appellants’ contentions may well be true,
but without evidence showing that they are, in fact, true, we cannot
determine that Appellants have rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness with a preponderance of the evidence. We express no opinion
as to whether Appellants’ contentions, if adequately supported by objective
evidence of record, would be sufficient to overcome the rejection.
(ii) The duty cycle limiter of Sutardja does not “generate
signals”
Appellants argue that Sutardja does not disclose a computer device
configured to “generate signals that drive the low duty cycle motor to
implement the automatic flight control command” as claimed; rather,

1 Appellants note (App. Br. 9) that the term “low duty cycle motor” is
defined in this manner in paragraph [18] of the Specification.
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

7
Sutardja is “similar to a passive valve that cuts power… based on a feedback
value.” App. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner observes that Sutardja
discloses a duty cycle limiter having digital controller 900 that “generates a
duty cycle signal to operate an output regulator of a motor.” Ans. 11.
Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection. The
Examiner correctly determined that Sutardja’s digital controller 900
generates signals, and that in the context of Nixon’s control system as
modified to include Murphy’s low duty cycle motor, Sutardja’s signals
would drive the motor to implement the automatic flight control command
without exceeding the duty cycle. Appellants’ arguments do not address the
Examiner’s findings that Sutardja’s digital controller 900 in fact generates
signals.
For these reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.
Separate patentability was not argued for claim 4, and we sustain the
decision to reject it as well.
b. Claims 15 and 18
Appellants’ arguments for patentability of claim 15 (App. Br. 11-13)
are analogous to those given for patentability of claim 1 given in section
I(A)(i) of the Appeal Brief and in the Reply Brief. We affirm the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 15 (and claim 18, for which separate
patentability was not argued) for reasons analogous to those given supra in
section 1(a)(i) of our Analysis.
c. Claims 21 and 22
Appellants’ arguments for patentability of claim 21 (App. Br. 13-17)
are analogous to those given for patentability of claim 1 given in sections
I(A)(i)-(ii) of the Appeal Brief and in the Reply Brief. We affirm the
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

8
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 21 (and claim 22, for which separate
patentability was not argued) for reasons analogous to those given supra in
sections 1(a)(i)-(ii) of our Analysis.
d. Claims 6, 9, and 24
Appellants’ arguments concerning these claims are largely analogous
to those given for claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 17. Appellants’ only argument
specific to these claims, stated in full, is: “One skilled in the art would never
control ailerons with low duty cycle motors or use such a system to maintain
an altitude or obtain an altitude.” Id. Like Appellants’ assertions regarding
claims 1 and 21, this assertion is unsupported by objective evidence of
record and so is insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness.
2. Claim 12
In response to the Examiner’s finding that that Cartmell discloses a
computer device that is configured to estimate a position of the low duty
cycle motor at para. [0029] (Ans. 6), Appellants argue that Cartmell merely
discloses “position demand signals” and does not disclose estimating motor
position. App. Br. 18. In response, the Examiner states that Cartmell’s
position demand signals represent a required position of the motor shaft.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the
cited portion of Cartmell discloses estimating the position of a motor. The
Examiner has not explained how disclosure of issuing position demand
signals amounts to a disclosure of estimating motor position. The Examiner
has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness for this claim.
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

9
3. Claims 3, 17, and 26
Appellants’ arguments are analogous to those given with respect to
claims 1, 15, and 21. We affirm this rejection for reasons similar to those
given above.
4. Claims 10 and 27
Appellants’ arguments are analogous to those given with respect to
claims 1 and 21. We affirm this rejection for reasons similar to those given
above.
5. Claims 11 and 28
Appellants’ arguments are analogous to those given with respect to
claims 1 and 21. We affirm this rejection for reasons similar to those given
above.
6. Claims 13, 19, and 25
These claims require that the low duty motor comprise a “trim
actuator motor.” The Examiner found that McKeown discloses a trim
actuator motor and concluded that it would have been obvious to include
McKeown’s trim tab actuator in the flight control system of Nixon as
modified by Murphy and Sutardja “for actuating mechanical controls in an
aircraft flight control system.” Ans. 9. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
rejection “never suggests where the additional trim tab actuator would be
located” and that “[a] trim tab actuator controls a trim tab. There is no
suggestion in any of the prior art of record for using a trim actuator ‘attached
to a flight control surface that controls the altitude of the jet aircraft.’ ” App.
Br. 20. Appellants also argue that the claims do not require controlling an
aileron with a trim actuator motor. Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2010-010683
Application 11/469,701

10
Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection
because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do
not require a “trim tab actuator,” so the Examiner’s failure to explain its
placement does not constitute error in the rejection. Elements that a claim
does not require are irrelevant to the obviousness determination.
7. Claim 20
Appellants’ arguments are analogous to those given with respect to
claim 15. We affirm this rejection for reasons similar to those given above.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-22, and 24-28 is AFFIRMED, and the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 12 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls