Ex Parte Raimbault et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2009

10703564 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NATHALIE RAIMBAULT, JEAN-PIERRE GAUTIER,
ALAIN SAGANSAN, and PIERRE FABRE
____________

Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: October 30, 2009
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL W. O'NEILL, and FRED A.
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nathalie Raimbault et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-15 and 17-20. The
Examiner has withdrawn claim 16 as not being drawn to elected subject
matter. No other claims are pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an aircraft fly-by-wire
control system that detects and damps pilot induced oscillations in the
control (the stick or rudder). Spec. 1:1-6 and 2:37 to 3:33. Pilot induced
oscillations are oscillations in the movement of the control resulting from
pilot over-compensation for lag, or delay, in the response of control surfaces
to commands generated by the control. Spec. 1:10-33. The control system
damps the oscillations by opposing the rate of travel of the control (the stick
or rudder). Spec. 3:30-33.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter.
11. A fly-by-wire control system that uses electric
flight commands to control an aircraft, the system
comprising:
a mobile control that generates electric
commands, in response to movements of the
mobile control, to control the aircraft about one of
its axes of maneuver;
a detector that detects pilot induced
oscillations in the electric commands; and
a controllable damper that damps
movements of the mobile control in accordance
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

3
with the detected pilot induced oscillations by
exerting a force that opposes the rate of travel of
the mobile control.

The Rejection
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15
and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vauvelle (US
5,125,602, issued Jun. 30, 1992).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUE
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the patentability
of dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 apart from independent claim 11.
Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007), dependent
claims 12-15 and 17-20 stand or fall with representative claim 11.
Appellants argue that Vauvelle lacks “a controllable damper that
damps movements of the mobile control in accordance with detected pilot
induced oscillations, by exerting a force that opposes the rate of travel of the
mobile control,” as called for in claim 11. App. Br. 5. According to
Appellants, Vauvelle’s torque motors “apply increasing force to oppose the
control stick movement as the amplitude of movement from a neutral
position increases” and apply decreasing force, but in the same direction, as
the control stick is moved back toward its neutral position. App. Br. 5-6.
Thus, Appellants contend that Vauvelle’s torque motors oppose the
movement of the stick away from its neutral position and assist its
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

4
movement toward the neutral position. App. Br. 6. Consequently,
according to Appellants, because movement of the control stick away from
its neutral position and then back toward its neutral position is a complete
oscillation, Vauvelle does not disclose exerting a damping force that opposes
the rate of travel of an oscillating control device. Id.
Citing to column 4, lines 10-11 and 22-25 of Vauvelle, the Examiner
found that, contrary to Appellants’ contention that Vauvelle teaches assisting
movement of the control stick, Vauvelle discloses at least one torque motor
that applies a torque resistant to tilting of the control stick. Ans. 8.
Accordingly, the issue presented in this appeal is whether Appellants
have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that Vauvelle’s torque
motors 10, 11, 18, 19 are configured within Vauvelle’s control system such
that they will damp movements of the ministick 6 or 7 in accordance with
detected pilot induced oscillations in the electric commands generated by the
ministick by exerting a force that opposes the rate of travel of the ministick 6
or 7.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE
1. Pilot induced oscillations are oscillations in the movement of the
control resulting from pilot over-compensation for lag, or delay, in
the response of control surfaces to commands generated by the
control. Spec. 1:10-33.
2. Appellants’ system includes dampers, which may be of a mechanical
or hydraulic type (Spec. 6:6-7) or electrical dampers, such as
synchronous machines having a rotor which carries permanent
magnets (Spec. 7:9-14), that damp the oscillations by opposing the
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

5
rate of travel of the control (the stick or rudder). Spec. 3:30-33. For
example, a preferred damper comprising a synchronous machine
with a permanent-magnet rotor operates to deliver a resistive torque.
Spec. 4:21-25.
3. Vauvelle’s aircraft control system includes two ministicks 6 and 7
which can be tilted about axes X-X and Y-Y for piloting the aircraft.
Vauvelle, col. 5, ll. 51-53 and 58-63, and col. 5, l. 67 to col. 6, l. 3.
Position sensors 17 and 25 sense the positions, or tilting around the
axes on both sides of a neutral position, of the ministicks 6 and 7,
and generate signals transmitted via lines 31, 35 to a calculation
means 30, which in turn transmits control orders corresponding to
the position of the ministick 6 or 7 via line 40 to the controlling
surfaces (for example, pitching). Vauvelle, col. 3, ll. 61-64, col. 5, ll.
63-66, col. 6, ll. 4-6 and 41-47; fig. 4.
4. Based on Fact 3, Vauvelle’s aircraft control system comprises a
mobile control (ministick 6 or 7) that generates electric commands
(control orders), via line 40, in response to movements of the mobile
control, to control the aircraft about one of its axes of maneuver (for
example, pitching).
5. Vauvelle’s position sensors 17 and 25 detect movement, in any
direction, of the mobile control (ministick 6 or 7). See Fact 3.
Vauvelle’s position sensors 17 and 25 thus detect movement, in
either direction, of the electric commands (control orders), which
correspond to the movement in the position of the ministick (see Fact
3). Inasmuch as position sensors 17 and 25 detect movement, in
either direction, of the electric commands, they will detect any back-
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

6
and-forth movement, or oscillations, in the electric commands
corresponding to oscillatory movement of the ministick by the pilot.
In other words, Vauvelle’s position detectors 17 and 25 will detect
pilot induced oscillations in the electric commands generated by the
ministick 6 or 7. See Fact 1.
6. In response to signals transmitted via lines 31 and 35 to calculation
means 30, calculation means 30 also transmits to motors 10, 11 and
18, 19 a feed signal, which is a programmed function of the
amplitude of the rotation of the ministick 6 or 7 around the axis X-X
or Y-Y, to produce at the output of the motors a load moment
opposing the action on the ministick 6 or 7. Vauvelle, col. 6, ll. 47-
53 and 56-60. Consequently, the pilot experiences a certain amount
of resistance to his movement of the ministick. Vauvelle, col. 6, ll.
53-55.
7. The calculation means 30 can be programmed to generate a feed
signal that simulates viscous damping characteristics. Vauvelle, col.
7, ll. 1-3.
8. Vauvelle’s torque motors 10, 11, 18, 19 produce a load moment
opposing the movement of the ministick so as to simulate viscous
damping characteristics. See Facts 6 and 7. Vauvelle does not
describe the torque motors 10, 11, 18, 19 producing a load moment,
or torque, assisting the movement of the ministick.
9. The verb “damp” is ordinarily understood to mean “reduce the
amplitude of oscillations, waves, etc.” Webster's New World
Dictionary 357 (David B. Guralnik ed., 2nd Coll. Ed., Simon &
Schuster, Inc. 1984).
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

7
10. Even assuming that Vauvelle’s calculation means 30 is programmed
to transmit a feed signal to produce a load moment assisting the
movement of the ministick 6 or 7 back toward a neutral position, as
Appellants contend, any such load moment would gradually go to
zero as the ministick approaches the neutral position, and would
reverse in direction as the ministick crosses the neutral position, so
as to oppose any movement away from the neutral position, thereby
reducing the amplitude of any oscillatory movement about such
neutral position.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed
invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001).

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ argument that Vauvelle does not disclose exerting a
damping force that opposes the rate of travel of an oscillating control device
is premised on Appellants’ contention that Vauvelle’s torque motors exert a
force that assists movement of the ministick toward its neutral position.
Appellants’ contention is not supported by Vauvelle. As shown in our
findings above, Vauvelle does not describe the torque motors 10, 11, 18, 19
producing a load moment, or torque, assisting the movement of the
ministick. Fact 8. Rather, Vauvelle’s torque motors 10, 11, 18, 19 produce
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

8
a load moment opposing the movement of the ministick so as to simulate
viscous damping characteristics. Facts 6, 7, and 8.
Inasmuch as position sensors 17 and 25 detect movement, in either
direction, of the ministick that generates electric commands, and hence of
the electric commands themselves, they will detect back-and-forth
movement, or oscillations, in the electric commands corresponding to
oscillatory movement of the ministick by the pilot. Fact 5. In other words,
Vauvelle’s position detectors 17 and 25 will detect any pilot induced
oscillations (see Fact 1) in the electric commands generated by the ministick
6 or 7. Id. Further, Vauvelle’s calculation means 30 transmits to motors 10,
11 and 18, 19 a feed signal, which is a programmed function of the
amplitude of the rotation of the ministick 6 or 7 around the axis X-X or Y-Y,
to produce at the output of the motors a load moment opposing the action on
the ministick 6 or 7. Fact 6. Consequently, Vauvelle’s calculation means 30
will transmit to motors 10, 11, and 18, 19 a feed signal to produce a load
moment opposing movement, in either direction, in accordance with the
detected rotation, that is, in accordance with the detected oscillations in the
electric commands generated by the ministick. Therefore, Vauvelle’s
motors will damp, that is, reduce the amplitude of oscillations (see Fact 9)
of, movements of the ministick in accordance with the detected pilot induced
oscillations by exerting a force (load moment) that opposes the rate of travel
of the mobile control, in much the same manner as Appellants’ dampers
(Fact 2).
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that Vauvelle’s calculation
means 30 is programmed to transmit a feed signal to produce a load moment
assisting the movement of the ministick 6 or 7 back toward a neutral
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

9
position, as Appellants contend, any such load moment would gradually go
to zero as the ministick approaches the neutral position, and would reverse in
direction as the ministick crosses the neutral position, so as to oppose any
movement away from the neutral position, thereby reducing the amplitude of
any oscillatory movement about such neutral position. Thus, even accepting
Appellants’ contentions as to how Vauvelle’s system operates, Vauvelle’s
motors will damp, that is, reduce the amplitude of oscillations (see Fact 9)
of, movements of the ministick in accordance with the detected pilot induced
oscillations by exerting a force (load moment) that opposes the rate of travel
of the mobile control.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
that Vauvelle’s torque motors 10, 11, 18, 19 are configured within
Vauvelle’s control system such that they will damp movements of the
ministick 6 or 7 in accordance with detected pilot induced oscillations in the
electric commands generated by the ministick by exerting a force that
opposes the rate of travel of the ministick 6 or 7. Thus, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, or claims
12-15 and 17-20, which fall with claim 11.
Appeal 2009-004037
Application 10/703,564

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

Dickinson Wright PLLC
James E. Ledbetter, Esq.
International Square
1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006