Ex Parte TestrakeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201311376730 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN G. TESTRAKE ____________ Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Steven G. Testrake (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hladky (US 4,599,070, iss. Jul. 8, 1986) and Parker (US 4,490,117, iss. Dec. 25, 1984). See App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A control system for in-flight use in a reciprocating engine-powered aircraft, the control system emulating that of a turbine-powered aircraft, the control system comprising: an integrated power controller configured for use in a reciprocating engine-powered aircraft while the aircraft is in flight and further configured to: (a) accept a single input from a pilot of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; (b) based at least in part on the single input, provide a first control signal to control a throttle setting for at least one engine of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; (c) based at least in part on the single input, provide a second control signal to control a propeller pitch setting for at least one propeller of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; and (d) based at least in part on the single input, provide a third control signal to control a fuel/air mixture setting for at least one engine of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; and a set of one or more computer displays that is configurable to emulate a set of instrument gauges used on the turbine-powered aircraft to display a set of information, the set of information comprising: (a) information about an altitude of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; (b) information about an attitude of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; (c) information about an airspeed of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft; and (d) information about a heading of the reciprocating engine-powered aircraft. See App. Br. 12, Clms. App’x. Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 3 ANALYSIS Each of the independent claims on appeal recites a control system for a reciprocating engine-powered aircraft which emulates a control system of a turbine-powered aircraft, including a controller configured to accept a single input from the pilot and, based at least in part on the single input, provide the first, second, and third control signals described in claim 1. See App. Br., Clms. App’x (claims 1, 19, 20, 21, and 22). Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Hladky and Parker disclose a control system meeting those claim requirements. See App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner cited Hladky as disclosing such a control system, albeit in a flight simulator rather than an airplane which can actually fly. See Ans. 4-5 and 16-18. In particular, the Examiner found Hladky discloses a controller configured to accept a “single input” from the pilot as claimed, citing Hladky at column 13, lines 50-67. See Ans. 5. We determine that finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, because the cited portion of Hladky discusses “the inputs received from the pilot’s and instructor’s consoles.” Hladky, col. 13, ll. 50-53 (emphasis added). The Examiner further found Hladky discloses, based at least in part on a single input, providing a first control signal for a throttle (citing Hladky, col. 6, l. 35), a second control signal for a propeller pitch (citing Hladky, col. 6, l. 36), and a third control signal for a fuel/air mixture setting (citing Hladky, col. 8, ll. 25-31). See Ans. 5. We determine that finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, because it conflates the claimed “input(s)” with the claimed “control signal(s)” provided based at Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 4 least in part on the input(s).1 We find, instead, that Hladky discloses a simulated pilot’s console 20 which includes three separate inputs: a throttle control 33, a propeller control 34, and an air/fuel mixture control 35. See Hladky, fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 23-48; and col. 10, ll. 35-40. Thus, three separate inputs 33, 34, and 35 respectively lead to each of the three claimed control signals, not a single input as claimed. The Examiner also found: Based on single input of the pilot using the control wheel or rudder, the [Hladky] simulator operatively simulate[s] varying air speed[s] in response to pitch and to bank angle, and yaw response to control wheel or rudder, and accordingly varying throttle control, propeller pitch control and air mixture control for each flying condition[]. Ans. 17 (emphasis added). The Examiner did not cite to any particular passage(s) or figure(s) in Hladky to support that finding. See id. Our independent review of Hladky indicates that the control wheel 30, control column 31, and rudder pedals 32 operate to control only the shape and direction of wing surfaces on the aircraft (e.g. ailerons, elevators, rudder, etc.), not the throttle, propeller pitch, or fuel/air mixture recited in the claims. See Hladky, col. 13, l. 60 to col. 14, l. 52. Thus, we determine that the quoted finding by the Examiner is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Examiner further provides a detailed discussion of the feedback signals generated by a simulation computer 24 in the Hladky system in response to the pilot’s inputs. See Ans. 16-17. Such feedback signals, for 1 We further struggle to see any relationship between the claimed third control signal for a fuel/air mixture setting and column 8, lines 25-31 of Hladky. Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 5 example, provide feel and response reactions in the pilot’s operating controls which simulate different aircraft operating conditions. See id. The Examiner also discusses a flight instructor’s console 222 by which the instructor may control the Hladky flight training simulation by introducing emergencies into the simulation. See id. 17. The feedback signals and instructor’s console, however, do not disclose or suggest the claimed requirement of a control system for a reciprocating engine-powered aircraft which emulates a control system of a turbine-powered aircraft, including providing a throttle control signal, a propeller pitch control signal, and a fuel/air mixture signal in response to a single input from the pilot. The Examiner cites Parker for its disclosure of an actual reciprocating engine-powered aircraft which can fly. See Ans. 6. Parker is not cited as curing the deficiency of Hladky regarding a control system for a reciprocating engine-powered aircraft which emulates a control system of a turbine-powered aircraft, including providing a throttle control signal, a propeller pitch control signal, and a fuel/air mixture signal in response to a single input from the pilot. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 as unpatentable over Hladky in view of Parker. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1-22 as unpatentable over Hladky in view of Parker. REVERSED 2 The Answer refers to the “console 110”, but Hladky identifies the console as 22 and a connected keyboard as 110. See Hladky, col. 7, ll. 41-44. Appeal 2012-001951 Application 11/376,730 6 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation