Ex Parte Schröder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13650749 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/650,749 10/12/2012
530 7590 07/03/2018
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karsten Schroder
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AIRBUS 3.9-417 CON 9598
EXAMINER
WANG, MICHAEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN SCHRODER
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-6. Final Office Action
(August 6, 2015) (hereinafter "Final Act."). 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Airbus Operations GmbH ("Appellant") is the applicant under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (March 7,
2016) (hereinafter "Br."), at 1.
2 Claim 2 is canceled. Final Act. 1.
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
The claimed subject matter relates to a "high lift system for an
aircraft, comprising at least one lift flap arranged on a wing." Specification
(October 12, 2012) (hereinafter "Spec."), i-f 2. The lift flap is movable
"between a retracted and at least one extended position relative to the wing."
Id. "In one or several extended positions, lift flaps designed as slats can be
spaced or offset away from the leading edge of the wing, thereby forming a
gap relative to the leading edge of the wing." Id. i-f 4. "The gap allows an
energy-rich stream of air to move from the flow approaching the wing onto
the upper profile side of the wing, where it shifts the stall toward higher
angles of attack." Id. To increase aerodynamic efficiency, the gap is
"preferably essentially convergent." Id. i-f 8.
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over the prior art. For
the reasons explained below, Appellant has demonstrated error in the
rejections. Accordingly, we REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 4 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced
below.
1. A high lift system for an aircraft, the system
compnsmg:
at least one lift flap arranged on a wing to form a gap
between a leading edge of the wing and a trailing edge of the lift
flap in an entirely extended position of the lift flap;
at least one flap adjustment mechanism for moving the lift
flap between a retracted and at least one extended position
relative to the wing,
2
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
wherein the wing comprises a depression with a leading
depression edge for accommodating the lift flap in a retracted
position,
wherein the leading depression edge is arranged in such an
area of the wing that a correspondingly formed region near the
trailing edge of the lift flap comprises a curvature, by which the
gap between the leading edge of the wing and trailing edge of the
lift flap is convergent, and
wherein the leading depression edge is arranged in a
position corresponding to a ratio of 0.5 to 2% of the profile depth
of the wing as viewed from the leading edge.
4. A high lift system for an aircraft, the system
compnsmg:
at least one lift flap arranged on a wing to form a gap
between a leading edge of the wing and a trailing edge of the lift
flap in an entirely extended position of the lift flap;
at least one flap adjustment mechanism for moving the lift
flap between a retracted and at least one extended position
relative to the wing,
wherein the wing comprises a depression with a leading
depression edge for accommodating the lift flap in a retracted
position,
wherein the leading depression edge is arranged in such an
area of the wing that a correspondingly formed region near the
trailing edge of the lift flap comprises a curvature, by which the
gap between the leading edge of the wing and trailing edge of the
lift flap is convergent, and
wherein the depression on the wing is configured in such
a way that a first local tangent of a mean line for the lift flap is
inclined at an angle of 5-30° at a trailing edge thereof relative to
a profile chord of the lift flap, and
wherein the depression on the wing is configured in such
a way that, in an area of the correspondingly formed lift flap lying
in a ratio of 5 to 25% of the profile depth of the lift flap, a second
3
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
tangent to the mean line includes an angle with the first tangent
of the mean line that measures 5-20°.
Br. 14-15, Claims Appendix.
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Capbem et al. (US 5,474,265, issued
December 12, 1995).
2. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Capbem and Beyer et al. (US 8,226,048 B2,
issued July 24, 2012).
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Claims 1, 5, and 6
The Examiner found that Capbem does not disclose the leading
depression edge arranged in the position relative to the leading edge of
the wing as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Final Act. 3, 5. The
Examiner found, however, that Capbem's general disclosure of a depression
in the leading edge of the wing would have rendered the claimed position of
the leading depression edge obvious as a matter of discovering the optimum
or workable ranges using routine skill in the art to minimize drag. Id.
The Examiner has failed to provide an adequate articulation of a
reason to modify Capbem. As to the position of the leading depression
edge, the Specification describes that "[a ]ccording to prior art, the leading
depression edge is arranged in an area comprising an x/c ratio of roughly
4
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
greaterthan or equal to 2.5%." Spec. i-f 27. 3 The Specification explains that
placement of the leading depression edge in this area results in a lift flap
having a curvature in its trailing edge that is so slight that the gap between
the lift flap and the leading edge of the wing comprises a pronounced
divergence in the area of the trailing edge of the lift flap. Id. The
Specification describes that the invention shifts the leading depression edge
forward (closer to the leading edge the wing) as compared the prior art so
that the resulting lift flap has a curvature in its trailing edge to improve the
gap geometries and reduce or completely eliminate gap divergence. Id. i-f 28.
In particular, the Specification discloses that by positioning the leading
depression edge at a position of the wing lying within a range of x/c = 0.5%
to xi c = 2 %, the correspondingly shaped trailing edge of the lift flap
comprises the form necessary for yielding a convergent gap. Id. i-f 15.
The Examiner bases the routine optimization rationale solely on
Capbem's disclosure of a depression in the wing for stowing the lift flap.
That disclosure does not provide a sufficient basis, by itself, to explain why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to optimize the
location of the leading depression edge to fall within the claimed range. See
In re Stepan Company, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
the Office "must provide some rational underpinning explaining why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed
invention through routine optimization"); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620
( CCP A 1977) (holding that an exception to the routine optimization rule is
when "the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective
3 We accept as true this statement made under oath. The Examiner has not
pointed us to evidence to the contrary.
5
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
variable"). As noted by Appellant, "Capbern is silent regarding the position
of the leading depression edge relative to the leading edge of the wing."
Br. 8-9. Further, the Examiner's proffered reasoning of routine optimization
to minimize drag is not adequately articulated. The Examiner failed to
provide any explanation as to how selecting a position of the leading
depression edge in an area of the wing within the claimed range results in
minimizing drag.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Capbem.
Second Ground of Rejection: Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. Br. 14 (Claims
Appendix). The Examiner does not rely on Beyer to cure the above-
discussed deficiency in Capbem as to obviousness of the position of the
leading depression edge relative to the leading edge of the wing. Final
Act. 5-6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Capbem and Beyer for the reasons
set forth above regarding claim 1.
The last two "wherein" clauses of independent claim 4 recite
limitations about the configuration of the depression on the wing that are
directed at the degree of curvature in an area of the corresponding lift flap
near its trailing edge. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner found that
Capbem does not disclose the claimed depression configurations. Final
Act. 7. The Examiner found, however, that Beyer shows a variable camber
lift flap. Id. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
modify Capbem using the teachings from Beyer "to give more control by
being able to change the camber of the flap." Id. The Examiner further
6
Appeal2017-007070
Application 13/650,749
determined it would have been obvious "to choose an inclination angle that
achieves the flow desired" as a matter of routine skill in the art in
discovering the optimum or workable ranges. Id.
Beyer teaches a Krueger flap with a variable camber having a
streamlined surface that changes shape as the leading edge panel is moved or
rotated. Beyer, Figs. 6-10, col. 3, 11. 53-57, col. 7, 11. 60-64. The Examiner
bases the routine optimization rationale solely on Beyer's disclosure of a
variable camber lift flap. That disclosure does not provide a sufficient basis,
by itself, to explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to optimize the camber of Cap bem' s lift flap to result first and second
tangent lines within the recited ranges. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d at 1346;
In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620. As noted by Appellant, the Examiner fails to
provide an "articulated correlation between [] changing the shape of the
streamlined surface and the mean line of the lift flap or the first and second
tangents." Br. 11. Thus, the Examiner has failed to provide an adequate
articulation of a reason to modify Capbem with Beyer to arrive at the
claimed subject matter. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Capbem and Beyer.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-6 is reversed.
REVERSED
7