Ex Parte Gratzer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

14610452 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
14/610,452 01/30/2015 Louis B. Gratzer 101678.0006P4 3142
7590
RUT AN & TUCKER, LLP
611 ANTON BLVD
SUITE 1400
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
03/15/2018 EXAMINER
BADAWI, MEDHAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 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):
patents @ rutan. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUIS B. GRATZER
Appeal 2017-002501
Application 14/610,452
Technology Center 3600
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Aviation Partners, Inc. is the Applicant and identified in the Appeal Brief as
the real party interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002501
Application 14/610,452
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A wing tip designed for attachment to an end of a wing of
an aircraft, the wing having a leading edge and a trailing edge in
a wing chord plane, the wing tip comprising:
a winglet having a leading edge and a trailing edge
designed to continuously transition from the leading edge
and the trailing edge of the wing, the leading edge of the
winglet swept rearward, the winglet comprising:
an adapter section designed for attachment to the wing
end;
a blade section extending above the wing chord plane;
a transition section connecting the blade section to the
adapter section; and
a tip section connected to the blade section opposite of the
transition section, the tip section having a leading edge
curved toward the freestream air direction; and
a ventral fin coupled to the winglet at an attachment location
adjacent the transition section, the ventral fin extending below
the wing chord plane, the ventral fin comprising a tip section
having a leading edge curved toward the freestream air direction.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Theurich (US 2010/0019094 Al, pub. Jan. 28, 2010) and Jupp
et al. (US 4,714,215, iss. Dec. 22, 1987).
2) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Theurich, Jupp, and Detert (US 2009/0084904
Al, pub. Apr. 2, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-002501
Application 14/610,452
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Theurich discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 except for the ventral fin as recited. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner
finds that Jupp discloses “a ventral fin coupled to the winglet at an
attachment location adjacent the transition section” and “extending below
the wing chord plane, the ventral fin comprising a tip section having a
leading edge curved toward the freestream air direction.” Id. at 5. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate Jupp’s ventral fin into the winglet of Theurich “to
increase in effective wing span when moving the lower winglet from the
static position to the in-flight position.” Id.
Appellant contends that neither Jupp nor Theurich discloses “a ventral
fin coupled to the winglet adjacent a transition section of the winglet.”
Appeal Br. 7. In support of this contention, Appellant argues that Jupp’s
winglet comprises an upward portion and a downward portion that are “to be
connected and either canted with respect to one another or co-planar.” Id.
(citing Jupp Fig. 11). Appellant argues that even if Jupp’s downward
portion “could properly be considered the claimed ventral fin, it is attached
at the tip of the wing rather than at a location along the Jupp upward
portion.” Id. at 7—8. The Examiner responds that the “ventral fin of Jupp
has been used to modify Theurich[’s] winglet, the modification is to place
the ventral fin adjacent a transition section of a winglet in order to obtain the
required effect of the increase in the effective wing span.” Ans. 8. For the
following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-002501
Application 14/610,452
Appellant’s Specification discloses a split winglet “attached to the
wing 104 at A.” Spec. |14, Fig. IB. The winglet includes “a transition
section A-B between the wing and winglet outer panel.” Id. Further, “[a]
ventral fin 102 projects below the wing chord plane and includes a ventral
surface D.” Id. As can be seen from Appellant’s Figure 1 A, the ventral fin
extends downward from the transition section at a point outboard of the end
of wing 104 (i.e., outboard of A).
The rejection relies on Jupp for disclosure of the recited ventral fin
which is not present in Theurich. Final Act. 5. Jupp discloses “winglets 2
extending from the tip” of the wing 1 “upwards and downward from a
median plane X—X of the wing.” Jupp 4:52—57. Plane X—X “is that plane
extending through or near the foremost and rearmost extremities of the
wing.” Id. 4:58—59. Jupp, thus, discloses a winglet with upward and
downward portions coupled to the end of an aircraft wing, not adjacent a
transition section. See id. Figs. 1,10. The Examiner’s finding that Jupp
discloses “a ventral fin coupled to the winglet at an attachment location
adjacent the transition section” is, thus, not supported by Jupp. As the
rejection is based on an erroneous factual finding, the conclusion of
obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be
supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it
cannot stand.”). We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims
2-4 which depend from claim 1.
Rejection 2
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13—14 (Claims
App.). In rejecting claims 5 and 6, the Examiner does not rely on the
4
Appeal 2017-002501
Application 14/610,452
additional disclosure from Detert to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1. Final Act. 7—8. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 6 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 is reversed.
REVERSED
5