Ex Parte Cotton et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 15, 2009

11140695 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRYAN SAXON COTTON, THOMAS L. TULLY, JR.,
and YURIY Z. GMIRYA
____________

Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: October 16, 2009

____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and FRED A.
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bryan Saxon Cotton et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2002) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

The Invention
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a rotary-wing aircraft.
The aircraft has a main rotor system 12 and a translational thrust system 30.
Spec. para. 0020. A main gearbox 26 drives both main rotor system 20
(made of dual, contra-rotating rotors 16 and 18) and translational thrust
system 30 (made of pusher propeller 32). Id. An overrunning clutch 38
attached to main gearbox 26 can transfer torque from main rotor system 12
to translational thrust system 30 when the main rotor system 12 is in an auto-
rotative state during high-speed flight. Spec. paras. 0021-22.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed invention.
1. A drive system for a rotary-wing aircraft
comprising:
a main rotor system;
a main gearbox to drive said main rotor
system;
a translational thrust system driven by said
main gearbox; and
an overrunning clutch in selective
engagement with said main gearbox such that
torque generated by said main rotor system from
autorotation is absorbed by said translational thrust
system during a high speed flight profile while said
main rotor is in an auto-rotative state.

Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

3
The Rejection
Appellants seek review of the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of claims 1-14 as anticipated by US 2,041,789 to Stalker (issued
May 26, 1936).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUE
Appellants argue claims 1-14 as a group. Therefore, claims 2-14
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). The issue
presented in this appeal is whether Appellants have demonstrated that
Stalker fails to anticipate claim 1, either by showing that the main rotor A in
Stalker is not driven by engine 12 through a geared connection, or that
Stalker does not describe an overrunning clutch that transfers torque from an
autorotating main rotor to the translational thrust system during a "high
speed flight profile."

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
(FINDINGS-OF-FACT (FF))
FF1 The Examiner found that Stalker describes a rotary-wing aircraft with
a main rotor system (wings A and control blades D) and a
translational thrust system (propeller 107). Ans. 3, see also Stalker, p.
7, col. 2, ll. 23-31, 47-59, noting that an engine 12 drives both a
blower 11, which directs air through slots 19 on the surface of wings
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

4
A, causing the wings to rotate, and the propeller 107, which directs air
rearward to provide directional torque for the aircraft.
FF2 The Examiner found that Stalker describes a main gearbox that
powers the control blades D, blower 11, and propeller 107. Ans. 3;
see also Stalker, p. 3, col. 2, ll. 58-71, fig. 3, noting main gearbox
takes the rotational motion of the wings A and translates that motion
into a contra-rotational motion of the control blades D; id., p. 7, col. 2,
ll. 29-48, 59-65, fig. 21, noting that the main gearbox, via gear 101,
transmits rotational motion from the wings A to the blower 11 and
propeller 107 via an overrunning clutch 100 (not labeled but similar in
appearance to clutch 98) and gears 102, 103, 99, shaft 104, etc.
FF3 The Examiner found that Stalker discloses that overrunning clutches
98 and 100 are in selective engagement with the main gearbox (see
FF2), such that torque generated by the main rotor system (wings A
and blades D) from autorotation is absorbed by the translational thrust
system (propeller 107) during a high speed flight profile. Ans. 3-4;
see Stalker, p. 7, col. 2, ll. 41-52, noting that the overrunning clutches
98 and 100 permit the wings A to turn blower 11 and propeller 107
without turning the engine 12, and permit the engine 12 to turn blower
11 and propeller 107 without exerting a torque on the wings A.
Further, Appellants admit that clutch 100 allows the main rotor A,
when in an auto-rotative state, to drive blower 11 and propeller 107.
Appeal Br. 9.
FF4 The Specification does not provide a special definition for the term
"high speed flight profile." Further, Appellants provide no evidence
showing that "high speed profile" is a term of art associated with any
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

5
established minimum speed threshold. In particular, Appellants’
reference to forward airspeeds being effectively limited in
conventional helicopters to approximately 180 knots (Spec., para.
0004) does not appear in the context of a definition of "high speed
profile."
FF5 An overrunning clutch, or freewheel, is well-known in the art as a
mechanical device that automatically disengages the driveshaft from
the driven shaft when the driven shaft rotates faster than the
driveshaft. See, e.g., Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical
Engineers 8-38 (Theodore Baumeister ed., 8th ed. 1978). A well-
known application is a bicycle, the overrunning clutch allowing the
rider to hold her feet still on the pedals while the bicycle continues to
coast forward.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The inventor may define specific terms used to describe his invention,
but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and,
if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the
patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the
change" in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Though understanding the claim language may be
aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a
claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.
For example, a particular embodiment appearing in

Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

6
the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the
embodiment.
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly
rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment,
the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that
embodiment).
Statements of intended use in an apparatus claim do not distinguish
the claim over the prior art apparatus. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA
1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as
recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based
on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as
useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable
of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a
dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found, with respect to claim 1, that Stalker describes an
aircraft with a main gearbox that drives a main rotor system and a
translational thrust system (propeller). FF1, FF2. Further, the Examiner
found that Stalker describes an overrunning clutch that transfers the torque
from the auto-rotating main rotors to the translational thrust system. FF3.
Moreover, Appellants admit that overrunning clutch 100 allows the main
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

7
rotor A, when in an auto-rotative state, to drive blower 11 and propeller 107
(the translational thrust system). Id.
Appellants argue that Stalker's main rotor is not driven by the engine
through a geared connection. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 1. However, claim 1
does not require that an engine drive the rotors through a geared connection.
In fact, no engine is claimed. It is well established that limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Instead, the limitation requires
only that a main gearbox, broadly, "drive" the main rotor system, not that an
engine directly drives the main rotor through a gearbox, or that the main
gearbox exclusively drives the main rotor. The main gearbox in Stalker
drives the main rotor system in at least two ways. First, the main gearbox in
Stalker drives the control blades of the main rotor system. See FF2. Second,
the main gearbox takes additional torque from the wings and transfers that
torque to the blower, which in turn turns the wings of the main rotor system.
See FF1, FF2, FF3. Both instances describe Stalker's main gearbox driving
the main rotor system.
Appellants next argue that the propeller cannot absorb additional
torque of the main rotor because of overrunning clutch 100. Appeal Br. 9.
However, Appellants admit that the main rotor transmits torque to the
propeller during autorotation. Appeal Br. 11, "Stalker . . . provides a driving
connection between the main rotor and the pusher prop"; Reply Br. 2,
"Stalker does provide a driving connection between the main rotor A and the
pusher propeller 107 … such absorbed torque reduces the inertia of the . . .
main rotor …." Overrunning clutch 100 selectively transmits a twisting
force from the main gearbox to the propeller. See FF2, FF3; see also FF5.
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

8
Clearly, if the main rotor delivers torque to the propeller via overrunning
clutch 100, then the clutch is allowing the propeller to absorb some of the
torque from the main rotors.
Appellants further argue that the overrunning clutch 100 does not
provide torque to the propeller during a "high speed flight profile." Appeal
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3. However, the term "high speed flight profile" is not
a term of art, nor defined in the Specification. FF4. Appellants argue that
the term is known in the art because "forward airspeeds of conventional
helicopters have been conventionally limited to approximately 180 knots."
Appeal Br. 11. However, Appellants provide no factual basis to support this
allegation. FF4. An attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
In addition, Appellants argue that the term is defined in the
Specification because the phrase, "forward airspeeds of conventional
helicopters have been conventionally limited to approximately 180 knots,"
from paragraph 0004 of the Specification's background section, "inherently
refer[s] to high-speed flight." Id. This phrase, however, does not specify,
"with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision," that high speed
flight profile means approximately 180 knots (see FF4), and thus is not a
special definition. See In re Paulson, 30 F.3d at 1480. Because Appellants
have not chosen to limit the claims to the particular meaning argued, we can
not read those limitations into the claim from the Specification. See, e.g.,
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d at 875.
Nevertheless, claim 1 does require an overrunning clutch that
performs a particular function (transfers torque) at a particular time (during
high speed flight). That is, the "high speed" limitation specifies an intended
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

9
use for the overrunning clutch. A limitation specifying a particular intended
use of a claimed structural element is anticipated by a prior art device
capable of performing that intended use. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
at 1477. Overrunning clutch 100 is designed to prevent the engine from
driving the main rotors directly but to still allow the main rotors to drive the
blower and the propeller. See FF3, see also FF5. As such, overrunning
clutch 100 transfers torque to the blower and the propeller automatically and
at any time the wings provide more rotational speed to the blower and the
propeller than the engine. See FF3, FF5. A clutch capable of transferring
torque at any time is capable of transferring torque at any flight speed,
including during a high speed flight profile. Thus, Stalker's overrunning
clutch 100 meets claim 1's intended use of being capable of engaging during
high speed flight, so as to transfer torque from the main rotor system to the
translational thrust system.
Appellants argue that Stalker transfers power between the main rotor
and the propeller "only at the least desirable time - during autorotation due
to engine failure." Appeal Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2-3. However, the claim
does not require that the torque transferred from the main rotor to the
propeller be transferred under circumstances other than engine failure. See
In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Further, no law of physics or logic prevents
engines from failing during high speed flight. If the engine were to fail
during high speed flight, the main rotors would necessarily provide more
rotational speed to the blower and the propeller than the engine. As noted
above, Stalker transmits torque from the main rotor to the propeller at any
time the rotor provides more rotational speed than the engine. See FF3, FF5.
An overrunning clutch capable of transferring torque at any time, at any
Appeal 2009-004925
Application 11/140,695

10
speed, and at any operational state of the engine is certainly capable of
transferring torque at a time when the aircraft is moving at a high speed and
the engine fails.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stalker anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. In particular, Appellants
have not demonstrated that Stalker does not describe a main gearbox to drive
the main rotor system, and an overrunning clutch that transfers torque from
an autorotating main rotor to the translational thrust system during a "high
speed flight profile."

DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed as to claims 1-14. 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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009