Raytheon Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2021

2020005088 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2021)

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.
15/156,507 05/17/2016 Eero H. Ala RAYTP0704US 4733
86009 7590 05/20/2021
Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP (Raytheon)
1621 Euclid Avenue - 19th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115
EXAMINER
ELAHMADI, ZAKARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2021 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EERO H. ALA and CHRISTOPHER P. OWAN

Appeal 2020 -005088
Application 15/156,507
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–18, and 20–24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005088
Application 15/156,507

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he invention is in the field of
attitude control systems, such as attitude control systems used for flight
vehicles.” Spec. ¶ 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An attitude control system comprising:
a control moment gyro pair that includes:
a first control moment gyro that includes a first
flywheel rotatably mounted to a first frame, wherein the
first flywheel rotates relative to the first frame about a first
flywheel rotation axis that is perpendicular to the first
flywheel;
a second control moment gyro that includes a
second flywheel rotatably mounted to a second frame,
wherein the second flywheel rotates relative to the second
frame about a second flywheel rotation axis that is
perpendicular to the second flywheel; and
one or more actuators that selectively counter-rotate
the first control moment gyro, and the second control
moment gyro, so as to rotate the first flywheel rotation axis
and the second flywheel rotation axis in opposite
directions to cant the first control moment gyro relative to
the second control moment gyro;
wherein the one or more actuators rotate the first flywheel
and the first frame, and the second flywheel and the second
frame, so as to rotate the first flywheel rotation axis and the
second flywheel rotation axis within respective offset parallel
planes.
Appeal Br. 22.
Appeal 2020-005088
Application 15/156,507

3
REJECTIONS2
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–15, 17, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hamady.3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hamady.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 18, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hamady in view of Smith.4
4. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hamady in view of Brandwijk.5
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
Claim 1 recites first and second control moment gyros including
flywheels and frames such that the flywheels rotate about an axis that is
perpendicular to the flywheel. Appeal Br. 22. Claim 1 also recites one or
more actuators that “selectively counter-rotate” the first and second gyros
“so as to rotate the first flywheel rotation axis and the second flywheel
rotation axis in opposite directions to cant the first control moment gyro
relative to the second control moment gyro.” Id.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hamady discloses first
and second gyros 100 and an actuator 130 that are configured as required by
claim 1. Final Act. 4, 10. In the rejection, the Examiner recites the language

2 We refer to the rejection headings presented in the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on May 20, 2020, which correct certain typographical errors in the
headings presented in the Final Action.
3 Hamady, US 2004/0216538 A1, pub. Nov. 4, 2004.
4 Smith et al., US 2006/0032985 A1, pub. Feb. 16, 2006.
5 Brandwijk, US 2016/0184993 A1, pub. June 30, 2016.
Appeal 2020-005088
Application 15/156,507

4
of the claim without further explaining how Hamady discloses an actuator
that selectively counter-rotates the gyros such that the flywheels rotate in
opposite directions to cant the gyros relative to each other. See id. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that Hamady discloses
an actuator that is so configured. See Appeal Br. 7–9.
Hamady discloses “[a] precessional device having independent
control of the output torque generated by the device and the oscillation rate
of the device.” Hamady, Abstract. Hamady’s device includes two flywheel
assemblies 100, each supported by an axle 115 that extends at both ends to a
circular track 120. Id. at ¶ 21. Each axle includes bearing mounts 125 that
“generate a preload that causes the flywheel/rotor assembly to cant at an
angle.” Id. Hamady also discloses that a motor 130 drives the tracks 120
through a transmission 140 that causes the tracks to counter rotate. Id.
Hamady also discloses the use of a locking solenoid 150 that engages
with a plate 155 to keep the position of each axle 115 fixed. Id. at ¶ 22. The
locked engagement of elements 150 and 155 acts as a clutch that drives
rotation of the wheel 110 when the track 120 is rotated. Id. Thus, Hamady
discloses that the frame is locked in place when the track is driven by the
motor 130, which drives rotation of the wheel 110.
Hamady further discloses how the axle tips are configured within the
circular tracks. Id. ¶ 23, Fig. 2. Hamady discloses that bearing mounts 125
support the axles and that the axles are canted at an angle “such that the axle
tip 225 is in rolling contact with the lower surface 230 of the track 120” and
the opposite end of the axle is in contact with the upper surface of the track.
Id. at ¶ 23.
Appeal 2020-005088
Application 15/156,507

5
We see no indication in Hamady, and the Examiner does not provide
sufficient explanation showing, how any actuator in Hamady counter-rotates
the gryos 100 such that the flywheels spin in opposite directions “to cant the
first control moment gyro relative to the second control moment gyro,” as
required by claim 1. At best, Hamady discloses only that the flywheel axles
are fixed in position and canted with respect to tracks. Hamady does not
appear to disclose that such canting is affected by the selective counter-
rotation of the tracks caused by the motor 130. Further, even if such canting
were caused by actuation of the motor, the claim requires that the gyros
themselves are canted relative to each other (elements 100 identified by the
Examiner) and not simply a portion thereof. In short, the Examiner does not
explain how Hamady discloses an actuator as claimed because Hamady does
not disclose that the motor 130 causes canting of the gyros with respect to
each other.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Hamady. For the same reasons, we are persuaded
of error in the rejection of the dependent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–15, 17, 20, and 21.6
Obviousness
Claims 6, 7, 10, 16, 23, and 24 each depends from claim 1 and the
Examiner does not provide additional evidence or analysis that cures the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Independent
claim 18, from which claim 22 depends, includes substantially the same

6 We also note the Examiner’s incongruous anticipation rejection of
claims 11–15, which depend from claim 10, a claim that has only been
rejected as obvious.
Appeal 2020-005088
Application 15/156,507

6
limitation at issue in our discussion of claim 1. For the reasons discussed
and because the Examiner does not rely on additional evidence or reasoning
that cures the deficiency discussed above, we are persuaded of error in, and
do not sustain, the rejections of claims 6, 7, 10, 16, 18, and 22–24.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3–18, and 20–24.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 8, 9,
11–15, 17,
20, 21
102(a)(1) Hamady 1, 3–5, 8,
9, 11–15,
17, 20, 21
6, 7 103 Hamady 6, 7
10, 18, 22–
24
103 Hamady, Smith 10, 18, 22–
24
16 103 Hamady,
Brandwijk
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–18,
20–24

REVERSED