Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2021001685 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2021)

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.
14/513,125 10/13/2014 Kevin Claffy 014.9136 7352
15846 7590 09/17/2021
LKGLOBAL (GD-Gulfstream)
7010 East Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
ZIAEIANMEHDIZADE, NAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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):
gulfstream@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN CLAFFY and JONG-YEOB SHIN
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20, which are the only
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed “generally to trim control in
fly-by-wire aircraft systems, and more particularly . . . to an input device for
a fly-by-wire system that includes autopilot disconnect and pitch re-trim
capabilities.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A fixed wing aircraft comprising:
a trim control system for controlling surfaces of the
aircraft; and
a fly-by-wire system communicatively coupled with the
trim control system, the fly-by-wire system comprising:
an inceptor with an input device and a manual trim
control switch, wherein the input device is a pushbutton;
and
a controller communicatively coupled with the
input device, the controller configured to:
control the trim control system,
obtain a re-trim input from the user as a
discrete depression of the pushbutton,
set a position of the surfaces of the aircraft
that achieves positive speed stability about a
trimmed condition at a present airspeed of the
aircraft in response to the re-trim input, wherein
positive speed stability is a tendency of the aircraft
to return to the trimmed condition after a
disturbance of the aircraft from the trimmed
condition,
command the trim control system to adjust
towards the position in response to the discrete
depression of the pushbutton, and
permit continuous manual flight and retain
positive speed stability in response to receiving the
re-trim input.
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jenny US 3,704,843 Dec. 5, 1972
Coleman US 5,692,708 Dec. 2, 1997
Osder US 2004/0093130 A1 May 13, 2004
Caldeira US 2013/0138274 A1 May 30, 2013
Golborne US 2015/0329199 A1 Nov. 19, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Caldeira and Golborne.
Claims 2, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Jenny.
Claims 4, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Osder.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Coleman.
OPINION
Obviousness—Caldeira and Golborne
The Examiner finds that Caldeira discloses a fixed wing aircraft with
a fly-by-wire system having most of the features recited in independent
claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 2–3, 5–6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Caldeira’s controller (processing system 16) is configured to:
control the trim control system (¶ 42), obtain a re-trim input
from the user as a discrete depression of the pushbutton
(¶¶ 39-40), set a position of the surfaces of the aircraft that
achieves positive speed stability about a trimmed condition at a
present airspeed of the aircraft in response to the re-trim input
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

4
(¶52, when switch 5 is momentarily pressed, when the landing
mode is engaged, i.e. positive speed stability -see ¶ 37- then the
reference speed (45) is updated (latched) with the value of the
current speed), wherein positive speed stability is a tendency of
the aircraft to return to the trimmed condition after a
disturbance of the aircraft from the trimmed condition (¶ 37),
command the trim control system to adjust towards the position
in response to the discreet depression of the push button (¶ 52),
and permit continuous manual flight and retain positive speed
stability in response to receiving the re-trim input (e.g.[,] ¶ 13
and claim 6 with landing associated with positive speed
stability).
Final Act. 3 (boldface omitted, addressing claim 1); see also Final Act. 5
(making substantially similar findings with respect to claim 10).
The Examiner finds, however, that “Caldeira does not expressly show
a separate manual trim control switch integrated into the inceptor.” Final
Act. 3, 6. The Examiner finds that “such choice is well within ordinary skill
in the art and very common in aviation industry.” Final Act. 3, 6. The
Examiner cites Golborne as an example of such an arrangement, and
determines it would have been obvious to provide a separate switch on the
inceptor of Caldeira for manual trimming instead of using the inceptor itself
“so as to minimize the possibility of accidentally disengag[ing] the auto-trim
yet still keeping the system user-friendly by providing an additional switch
on the inceptor.” Final Act. 3, 6. Further, the Examiner cites paragraph 2 of
Golborne for its teaching of the importance of avoiding the possibility of an
unintentional disengagement of the autopilot. Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning in rejecting
independent claim 16. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s stated reason for the
combination of Caldeira and Golborne—to minimize the possibility of
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

5
accidentally disengaging auto-trim—lacks any rational underpinning.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant notes that Caldeira’s neutral stability auto-trim is
only disengaged when the aircraft is configured for landing (i.e., when the
flap levers are in the landing position and the landing gears are down-
locked) and switch 5 is not pressed, and contends that “[p]roviding a
separate manual trim control switch does not protect against accidental
disengagement of such ‘auto-trim’ functionality.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument attacking the aforementioned rationale for the
combination has some merit. However, the Examiner also articulates
additional findings and rationales for the proposed combination of Caldeira
and Golborne. See Ans. 7. More specifically, the Examiner finds that
having a separate designated input to operate sensitive aircraft operations is
well known in the art not only to minimize inadvertent or accidental
activation of some systems, thereby providing an additional layer of safety,
but also to “reduc[e] extra burden on the operator resulting in a higher
situational awareness since the operator bandwidth to deal with an[] ever
increasing flow of information is limited and should be maintained at an
acceptable level throughout the flight.” Ans. 7.
Appellant does not specifically refute the Examiner’s findings in this
regard. See Reply Br. 2–3. Given the uncontested findings of the Examiner
with respect to what was well known in the art (Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 7), the
modification proposed by the Examiner— a separate switch on the inceptor
of Caldeira for manual trimming instead of using the inceptor itself—
amounts to nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions, the simple substitution of one
known element/technique (i.e., a separate, designated switch for manual
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

6
trim) for another (i.e., manipulation of the inceptor), or the mere application
of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (stating that such
modifications are likely to be obvious).
Appellant submits that Caldeira’s teaching that the reference speed is
continuously resynchronized to the current airspeed as long as switch 5 is
pressed fails to satisfy the limitation of obtaining the re-trim input as a
discrete depression of the pushbutton, as recited in each of independent
claims 1, 10, and 16. Appeal Br. 11 (contending that “‘[d]iscrete’ and
‘continuous’ have opposite meanings”). For the reasons that follow,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Accepting Appellant’s proffered definitions of “discrete” (i.e.,
individually distinct) and “continuous” (i.e., marked by uninterrupted
extension in space, time, or sequence),2 we discern no reason why a
depression of a switch once for some finite uninterrupted extension of time
does not constitute an individually distinct (i.e., discrete) depression of the
switch. Moreover, Caldeira’s control system does not require switch 5 to be
pressed for any particular length of time to select the current speed as the
new reference speed. Caldeira discloses that, once the target aircraft speed
is reached, the pilot pushes and releases momentary switch 5 to latch the
current speed as a reference in the control law. Caldeira ¶ 39. Persons of
ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from this disclosure that
Caldeira contemplates the pilot pressing switch 5 momentarily (i.e., pressing
and immediately releasing the switch) to set the reference speed to the

2 Appeal Br. 11 n.b.
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

7
current aircraft speed once the target aircraft speed is reached. Thus, even if
“discrete” as used in claims 1, 10, and 16 were construed as requiring a
momentary depression of the pushbutton, this would not patentably
distinguish the claimed invention over Caldeira.
Appellant argues that “Caldeira describes a system that provides
neutral speed stability during all phases of flight except for landing while the
momentary on/off button is NOT pressed.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant
contends that when Caldeira’s button (momentary switch 5) is pressed,
Caldeira’s aircraft provides neutral static speed stability, not positive speed
stability as claimed. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Caldeira ¶¶ 50, 51). Referencing
Figure 4, Caldeira explains that switch 5 “needs to be not pressed (38), in
order to provide speed stability.” Caldeira ¶ 50. Further, Caldeira discloses
that, “[w]ith . . . switch [5] pressed, the default control law provides neutral
static speed stability.” Caldeira ¶ 51. For the reasons that follow,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Caldeira discloses that its fly-by-wire system uses a conventional
longitudinal control law that “provides neutral static speed stability and
auto-trim” during most of the flight phases. Caldeira ¶ 6. According to
Caldeira, “[t]his type of control law provides excellent handling qualities
while in cruise but not necessarily during landing.” Caldeira ¶ 6. Thus,
Caldeira’s improved flight control system “add[s] positive speed stability
characteristics to a longitudinal control law when the aircraft is set to the
approach configuration, i.e.[,] when the flap lever is set to the landing
position and landing gears are down.” Caldeira ¶ 10; see also Caldeira ¶ 11
(disclosing “a flight control system that adds positive static speed stability to
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

8
longitudinal control law when aircraft is configured for landing, i.e.[,] flap
levers in the landing position and landing gears down-locked”).
As illustrated in Figure 4, and explained in paragraphs 33–37 and
50–52 of Caldeira, this modified control law, which provides positive static
speed stability to the longitudinal control law, is engaged (i.e., bf=TRUE)
when four conditions are met—the flap lever position signal indicates the
flap lever is in the landing configuration, the aircraft is identified as being
in-air, the landing gears are identified as down-locked, and switch 5 is not
pressed. “After the engagement of this mode, the control law changes its
characteristics of neutral static speed stability and auto-trim to a
configuration with positive speed stability and manual trim.” Caldeira ¶ 37.
To reduce the workload of the pilot in this manual trim mode during
approach and landing, once the target airspeed is reached using manual trim
techniques, Caldeira’s system allows the pilot to press and release switch 5
to synchronize and latch the reference speed to the current airspeed. See
Caldeira ¶¶ 39, 52. Caldeira is very clear that switch 5 “needs to be not
pressed (38), in order to provide speed stability” (¶ 50) and that, “with the
switch pressed, the default control law provides neutral static speed
stability.” Caldeira ¶ 51.
Thus, Appellant is correct that, when Caldeira’s switch 5 is pressed,
Caldeira’s system provides neutral speed stability, not positive speed
stability. However, Appellant’s claims do not recite a controller configured
to retain positive speed stability when the pushbutton is depressed. Rather,
claims 1, 10, and 16 recite a controller configured to obtain a “re-trim input
from the user as a discrete depression of the pushbutton” and to “permit
continuous manual flight and retain positive speed stability in response to
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

9
receiving the re-trim input.” Appeal Br. 14, 16, 17 (Claims App.). As
explained in the Examiner’s rejection, Caldeira obtains a re-trim input when
switch 5 is momentarily pressed and released, such that the reference speed
is latched with the value of the current speed. Final Act. 3, 5. Once switch 5
is released, during the landing mode (i.e., the flap lever being in the landing
configuration, the aircraft being in-air, and the landing gears being
down-locked), as illustrated by the logic shown in Figure, 4, the interlock
(bf=TRUE) that provides positive speed stability to the longitudinal control
law is again satisfied. See Caldeira ¶ 50. In other words, in response to
receiving the re-trim input by momentary depression and release of switch
50, Caldeira’s controller retains positive speed stability.
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 1, or of claims 3 and 5, which depend from
claim 1 and for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments.
See Appeal Br. 9–13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3,
and 5 as being unpatentable over Caldeira and Golborne.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1 recites that the controller is
“configured to disengage an autopilot in response to an autopilot disconnect
input from the input device.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Independent
claims 10 and 16 include similar language. Appeal Br. 16, 18 (Claims
App.). In addressing this limitation, the Examiner cites “Fig. 2, on-off
switch 5, auto-trim is disengaged momentarily.” Final Act. 4, 5 (boldface
omitted); see also Final Act. 6–7 (relying on the findings and analysis
applied to claim 10 in addressing claim 16) (boldface omitted).
Appellant argues that Caldeira’s auto-trim “is not ever active while
the momentary on-off switch is active to set a new speed reference value.”
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

10
Appeal Br. 7 (citing Caldeira ¶¶ 6, 13). Appellant submits that operation of
Caldeira in the normal non-landing mode, wherein the system provides
neutral static speed stability, is not pertinent to the claimed invention,
wherein the controller is configured to retain positive speed stability.
Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellant submits that Caldeira does not describe a
function of on-off switch 5 in the non-landing mode. Appeal Br. 8.
Turning to the landing mode of Caldeira, Appellant contends that
Caldeira disengages the auto-trim capability in response to entering the
second (landing) mode, rather than in response to pressing switch 5. Appeal
Br. 8. Thus, Appellant argues that pressing switch 5 does not disable the
auto-trim; rather, Caldeira’s “auto-trim capability is disabled in response to
entering the second mode based on the flap lever position and the landing
gear position.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that, in fact, pressing
Caldeira’s switch 5 has the opposite effect—“‘[w]ith the switch [5] pressed,
the default control law provides neutral static speed stability’ with auto-
trim.” Appeal Br. 8 (alterations in original) (citing Caldeira ¶ 51).
In response, the Examiner insists that “the operator’s activation of the
switch interrupts the auto-trim.” Ans. 4 (explaining that, “[i]n other words,
the automatic operation of the aircraft is momentarily interrupted for the
pilot or operator to make adjustments (e.g. set a new speed)”). According to
the Examiner, “setting a new speed reference value interrupts the otherwise
automatic operation of the aircraft, which clearly requires the auto-trim to be
active.” Ans. 4.
Turning to Appellant’s contention with respect to Caldeira’s system
providing neutral speed stability with auto-trim in response to pressing
switch 5 during the landing mode, the Examiner posits that the system
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

11
disclosed in Caldeira’s paragraph 50 “is merely a non-limiting illustrative
example meaning that in a different embodiment such arrangement, in
addition to other arrangements disclosed, may be employed.” Ans. 6.
Appellant counters by reiterating that Caldeira’s switch 5 has no
disclosed function in the cruise/non-landing mode and contending that the
Examiner is conflating Caldeira’s cruise mode (with neutral static speed
stability and auto-trim) and landing mode (with positive static speed stability
and manual trim) into a “new phantom mode.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
argues that, even assuming that Caldeira’s switch 5 has a function in the
cruise mode and that Caldeira’s auto-trim feature is considered to be the
claimed autopilot, Caldeira’s controller is configured to re-engage the
auto-trim and provide neutral static speed stability in response to switch 5
being pressed. Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Caldeira only discloses two
modes—a cruise mode in which the control law provides neutral static speed
stability and auto-trim, and a landing mode in which the control law
provides positive speed stability and manual trim. See Caldeira ¶¶ 6, 10, 37.
Thus, in the landing mode, there is no auto-trim (i.e., autopilot) to be
disengaged in response to pressing switch 5. On the other hand, in the cruise
mode, Caldeira’s control law provides neutral static speed stability and
auto-trim. As explained in paragraphs 33–37 and 50–52, Caldeira’s cruise
mode, with its auto-trim feature, is not disengaged in response to pressing
switch 5; rather, the cruise mode is disengaged, and the landing mode is
engaged, when four conditions are met—the flap lever position signal
indicates the flap lever is in the landing configuration, the aircraft is
identified as being in-air, the landing gears are identified as down-locked,
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

12
and switch 5 is not pressed. Thus, Caldeira’s controller is not configured to
disengage an autopilot in response to input from switch 5 and, therefore,
does not satisfy the limitation “configured to disengage an autopilot in
response to an autopilot disconnect input from the input device” recited in
claim 7 or the substantially similar limitation in claims 10 and 16.
The Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Caldeira supporting
the position that setting a new reference speed interrupts, much less
disengages, the auto-trim. The Examiner’s comments regarding Caldeira’s
disclosure of a non-limiting illustrative example and wild speculation
regarding different arrangements in addition to those disclosed (Ans. 6) are
unavailing to overcome the deficiencies of Caldeira vis-à-vis the
aforementioned limitations of claims 7, 10, and 16. “[L]egal determinations
of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on
evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v.
Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F. 3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 10, and 16 as
being unpatentable over Caldeira and Golborne. For the same reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, which depends from claim 7, or of
claims 13 and 15, which depend from claim 10, as being unpatentable over
Caldeira and Golborne.
Obviousness—Caldeira and Golborne in view of one of Jenny, Osder, or
Coleman
Appellant relies solely on the arguments presented for claim 1 in
contesting the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, and 6. See Appeal Br. 11,
13. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments fail to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

13
the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 2 as being unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Jenny; the
rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and
Osder; and the rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Caldeira,
Golborne, and Coleman.
The Examiner’s additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claims
11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 does not make up for the deficiency in the
rejection of claims 7, 10, and 16 discussed above. See Final Act. 7–9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Jenny; the rejection of claims 12
and 18 as being unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne, and Osder; or the
rejection of claims 14 and 20 as being unpatentable over Caldeira, Golborne,
and Coleman.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED as to claims 1–6 and
REVERSED as to claims 7, 8, 10–18, and 20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
10, 13, 15,
16
103 Caldeira, Golborne 1, 3, 5 7, 8, 10, 13,
15, 16
2, 11, 17 103 Caldeira,
Golborne, Jenny
2 11, 17
4, 12, 18 103 Caldeira,
Golborne, Osder
4 12, 18
Appeal 2021-001685
Application 14/513,125

14
6, 14, 20 103 Caldeira,
Golborne,
Coleman
6 14, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–6 7, 8, 10–18,
20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART