Ex Parte Canter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2012

11521672 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 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.
11/521,672 09/15/2006 Stanley Canter PD-05-1190 1819
48058 7590 09/07/2012
GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
GREEN, RICHARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STANLEY CANTER,
JANE R. FELLAND, DAVID P. FRIEDHOFF, and
DENNIS Y. NAKASONE
____________________

Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, STEPHEN S. SIU, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellants1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Reference Relied on by the Examiner
Sass 3,559,919 Feb. 2, 1971

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sass.
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sass.

The Invention
The invention relates to the deployment of a solar array on an orbiting
satellite. (Spec. 1:5-7.) Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims. Claim
1 is drawn to a method and claims 8 and 14 are directed to corresponding
apparatus. Claim 1 is reproduced below (App. Br. 17, Claims App’x.)
1. A method for deploying a solar array of a satellite, comprising
the steps of:

rotating the solar array in a first plane and about a first axis
from a stowed position to a first position;

1 The real party in interest is identified in the Appeal Brief filed September
24, 2009 (“App. Br.”) as THE BOEING COMPANY.
Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672

3
rotating the solar array about a second axis orthogonal to the
first axis from the first position to a deployed position determined by a
deployment orbit of the satellite; and

locking the solar array in the deployed position to prevent
further motion of the solar array relative to a satellite body for the
operational life of the satellite.
B. ISSUE
Did the Examiner present an adequate underlying basis for rejecting
Appellants’ claims 1-20 based on the teachings of Sass?
C. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, and 18-20 as anticipated
by Sass and claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 as obvious in view of Sass.
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 include the feature of a “solar
array” that has a “stowed position” and a “deployed position.” (App. Br.,
17, 18, 19, Claims App’x.) Transition between the stowed position and the
deployed position is accomplished by rotating the solar array “in a first plane
and about a first axis to a first position” and then “about a second axis
orthogonal to the first axis from the first position to a deployed position.”
(Id.) The claims further recite that the deployed position is ultimately
“determined by a deployment orbit of the satellite.” (Id.)
With respect to the presence of a “solar array” in association with a
satellite body, the Examiner found that elements 6 and 7 in Sass,
characterized as “solar battery assemblies,” satisfy the pertinent feature.
(Ans., 3:6-7.) In connection with the rotation requirements of the claims, the
Examiner stated (id. at 3:21-4:8):
Wherein the solar array rotates in a first plane about a first axis
from a stowed position to a first position (fig. 4a shows a stowed
App
App

repro

unde
eal 2010-0
lication 11
position
position
plane pa
body; se
W
to the fir
determin
position
assembli
orthogon
figure)[.
The ann
duced bel

The Exa
rstanding
07543
/521,672
, and fig. 4
of 4a to th
rallel to th
e the exam
herein the
st axis fro
ed by a de
of fig. 4b
es and com
al to the f
]
otated figu
ow (Ans.,
miner’s an
that the tra
b shows a
at of 4b th
at of the h
iner anno
solar arra
m the first
ployment
to the dep
ponent p
irst, such a
re that is r
5):
ticipation
nsition of
4
first posit
e arrays ro
exagonal c
tated figur
y rotates a
position t
orbit of th
loyed pos
anels rotat
s the one
eferenced
rejection i
Sass’ sate
ion, and to
tate about
ross sectio
e included
bout a sec
o a deploy
e satellite
ition of fig
e about a s
depicted in
in the abo
s first pred
llite from
get from
a first axi
n of the s
below);
ond axis o
ed position
(to get to t
. 4d, the b
econd axi
the annot
ve-quoted
icated on
its inopera
the
s in a first
atellite
rthogonal

he first
attery
s
ated
text is

the
tive or

Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672

5
stowed configuration shown in Fig. 4a to the configuration shown in Fig. 4b
constitutes rotation about the axis designated in the above-reproduced
figures as “1st axis.” The Appellants challenge the Examiner’s position in
that regard in-part on the basis that the required rotation is not shown or
described in Sass. (App. Br., 9:1-3.)
We observe that Sass describes its Fig. 4b as showing “the initial
stages of the unfolding of the solar batteries.” (Sass, 3:69-70.) Although the
Examiner generally characterizes that unfolding action as rotation of a solar
array about the designated first axis (Ans. 4:1-3), it is not clear that such
characterization is correct. The Examiner’s basis for that characterization is
left unexplained. It is not apparent that the unfolding of solar batteries 6 and
7 necessarily means that each of those batteries as a whole rotates about the
designated axis in the manner required by the Appellants’ claims.
Moreover, if “unfolding” of the solar batteries does involve some rotation of
some component of the battery, the Examiner does not suitably explain why
any such rotation of individual components of the solar batteries is rationally
understood as rotation of “the solar array” about the first axis as is required
by the claims.
In any event, even assuming that an “unfolding” action equates to the
required rotation about the first axis, the Examiner next urges that the
rotation of the solar array into the “deployed position of fig. 4d” is
accomplished by rotating the batteries about a second axis orthogonal to the
first. (Ans., 4:6-8.) It is, however, evident from the Examiner’s annotations
of Sass’s Figures 4a-4d that any rotation of solar battery 7 about the marked
“2nd axis” places the battery into the configuration shown in Fig. 4c. That
figure is described as showing “the batteries in a further stage of unfolding.”
Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672

6
(Sass, 3:71-72.) The Examiner does not articulate how or why “a further
stage of unfolding” would have been understood as constituting a deployed
position. Indeed, in the context of the Appellants’ specification and the
claims, the “deployed position” is the final position of the solar array and the
position in which the array is locked with respect to a satellite body for the
operational life of the satellite. (See, e.g., Spec., 2:12-23; Claims 1, 8, and
14.)
It is the position of the solar batteries shown in Sass’ Fig. 4d which is
disclosed as the “final position.” (Sass, 3:73-75.) The “final position” is the
position reasonably regarded as the deployed position. That final position,
however, is not attained through rotation of a solar array “about a second
axis orthogonal to the first axis,” as required by the claims, but is instead
reached through an additional act of rotation, i.e., that designated in the
Examiner’s annotated figures as rotation about the “3rd axis.” Additional
intervening rotation about an axis that is not one orthogonal to the first axis
for assuming the final or deployed position shown in Fig. 4d is, in our view,
excluded from the Appellants’ claims, which require that the solar array is
rotated about the second orthogonal axis “from the first position to a
deployed position[.]”
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For at least the foregoing reasons, we are
not persuaded that Sass discloses all the features required by claims 1, 8, and
14. We conclude that the Examiner has not adequately established that
claims 1, 8, and 14 are anticipated by Sass. We reach the same conclusion
Appeal 2010-007543
Application 11/521,672

7
with respect to claims 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18-20, which ultimately depend on
one of claims 1, 8, and 14.
The Examiner’s rationale for rejecting claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 as
obvious in light of Sass does not account for the above-noted deficiencies in
connection with claims 1, 8, and 14, but is instead advanced to account for
features added by claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 over Sass.
D. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not present an adequate
underlying basis for rejecting the Appellants’ claims 1-20 based on the
teachings of Sass.
E. ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 12-14, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sass is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5, 9-11, and 15-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sass is reversed.

REVERSED