Bell Textron Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2021

2021003790 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
15/980,452 05/15/2018 Kynn Jerald Schulte RR60388.P030US 8904
171950 7590 12/21/2021
Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP
9201 N. Central Expressway Fourth Floor
Dallas, TX 75231
EXAMINER
WONG, ELTON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2021 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):
jsheridan@shackelford.law
shackelforddocketing@anaqua.com
vmhasvi@shackelford.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYNN JERALD SCHULTE and TROY CYRIL SCHANK
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bell Textron Inc..
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to control systems and methods for rotating
systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a rotor assembly, wherein the rotor assembly rotates in
response to torque and rotational energy provided thereto;
a first controllable element disposed in the rotor assembly;
a first actuator disposed in the rotor assembly and
configured to control motion of the first controllable element;
a first sensor disposed in the rotor assembly and
configured to provide position feedback in relation to the first
controllable element;
a first local control computer, disposed in the rotor
assembly, that manages a first control loop for the first
controllable element, wherein the first control loop comprises the
first actuator and the first sensor, and wherein the first local
control computer is configured to transmit a control signal to the
first actuator and receive a feedback signal from the first sensor;
a second actuator disposed in the rotor assembly and
configured to control motion of the first controllable element;
a second sensor disposed m the rotor assembly and
configured to provide position feedback in relation to the first
controllable element; and
a second local control computer, disposed in the rotor
assembly, that manages a second control loop for the first
controllable element, wherein the second control loop comprises
the second actuator and the second sensor, and wherein the
second local control computer is configured to transmit a control
signal to the second actuator and receive a feedback signal from
the second sensor.
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sane US 2014/0314130 A1 Oct. 23, 2014
White US 2018/0004229 A1 Jan. 4, 2018

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over by Sane and White. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner relies on Sane for all aspects of claim 1 except for a
second computer, for which the Examiner relies on White. Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant raises two issues with regard to the Examiner’s rejection. The first
relates to the Examiner’s application of Sane and appears to result from a
misunderstanding of the Examiner’s position (Reply Br. 4) and, possibly,
Appellant reading claim 1 to include limitations which it does not.
Appellant accurately reproduces the Examiner’s position from the
October 9, 2020, Advisory Action stating: “the ‘controllable element’ is
interpreted as a given blade while the sensors and actuators are what are
required to control the different aspects, such as blade pitch, lead-lag, flap,
etc.” Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellant then proceeds to argue: “If the
aspects which Sane’s actuators control are different as stated by the
Examiner, then by Examiner admission such aspects are not the same.
Accordingly, these different aspects controlled by different alleged actuators
are quite clearly not the same controllable element.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
4
Appellant’s argument confuses the subject matter relied upon by the
Examiner in Sane as the controllable element, i.e., the blade, with the subject
matter relied upon by the Examiner as the recited motions controlled by
respective actuators 38 receiving feedback from respective sensors 39, both
of which are under the control of a computer 32—collectively what the
Examiner characterizes as “the different aspects.” Ans. 3–4. According to
the Examiner’s interpretation the blade is always considered the recited
“controllable element.” Id. Appellant does not appear to fully appreciate the
Examiner’s position in this regard and does not apprise us of any reason why
the Examiner’s interpretation of “controllable element” as being “a given
blade” is unreasonably broad in view of the claim language or Specification.
Although schematically illustrated, Figure 2 of Sane fairly teaches the
actuators 38, sensors 39, and computer 32, are located “within the rotor
assembly.” See Appeal Br. 8, 10 (emphasizing this claim language without
further explanation).
More relevant to the Examiner’s stated position, Appellant further
argues:
Additionally, the Examiner has further provided no factual
support for so much as the same blade having “plural” actuators
and sensors. In Sane, the terms “actuators” and “sensors” are
only used in the plural with regard to rotor system 12 or rotor hub
26, and never with regard to “a given blade.” . . . there is no
support in the factual record for “plural” actuators and sensors
for the same blade.
Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br 5. However, the very paragraph reproduced by
Appellant (Sane, Para. 18) refers to such actuators 39 in connection with the
pitch, lead-lag, and flap of an “individual blade.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis
added). An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
5
from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962). A person of skill in this art would read paragraph 18 to imply
that each of Sane’s actuators 39 is respectively associated with each of the
described degrees of freedom pitch, lead-lag, and flap because a skilled
artisan would expect these to be separately articulated. If Appellant is of the
view that all three of those could be controlled by providing only a single
actuator associated with each blade (Appeal Br. 10), Appellant is in the best
position to furnish evidence to demonstrate that and this has not been done.
Whether the respective actuators control these movements for multiple
blades is of no moment concerning claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite
language precluding such an arrangement.2
To the extent Appellant is reading claim 1 to require such subject
matter we note that, although we agree with Appellant that claim 1 requires
the respective actuators, sensors and computers to control or provide
feedback for the same controllable element (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3),
claim 1 does not recite any language requiring the respective actuators,
sensors and computers to control that controllable element in the same way.
Appeal Br. 10 (“Sane fails to disclose redundant control loops”). We are
mindful that the arrangement disclosed in Appellant’s Specification intended

2 We do think the most proper reading of paragraphs 17 and 18 of Sane is to
associate respective actuators, sensors, and feedback loops with each degree
of freedom for each blade. If this is not implicit it would at least seem to
have been obvious. However, this issue is not well-developed in the record
before us as “a second controllable” element requiring, under the Examiner’s
interpretation, a second controlled blade with respective actuators, sensors
and computers, is not introduced until claim 11 (Final Act. 9–10) and
Appellant does not argue claim 11 with specific arguments addressing the
subject matter thereof (Appeal Br. 15 (“For at least the same reasons [as
claim 1] . . . )).
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
6
to provide redundancy in the case of actuator failure. See, e.g., Spec., paras.
22, 43, 46, 57, 65. However, it is well-settled that we should not “read[]
limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the
specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear
disclaimer in the specification.” In re American Academy of Science Tech
Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). If, for
example, Appellant wanted to indicate that the “motion of the first
controllable element” that the second actuator is “configured to control” is
the same “motion of the first controllable element” that the first actuator is
“configured to control” one would expect the claim to reference “the” or
“said” “motion of the first controllable element” in connection with
describing the motion that the second actuator is “configured to control.” We
make this comment merely as an example for the purpose of illustrating a
distinction between Appellant’s preferred embodiment and the subject
matter actually claimed according to claim 1. As no such language exists in
claim 1 with regard to any of the actuators, sensors, and computers, neither
we nor the Examiner opine on the patentability of subject matter including
such features. “The invention disclosed in [Appellant’s] written description
may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim.” In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F. 3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appellant’s next and final argument concerning claim 1 is properly
characterized by the Examiner as attacking the references individually rather
than addressing the Examiner’s proposed combination. Appeal Br. 11; Ans.
4. Appellant points out: “By Examiner admission, Sane fails to disclose
multiple local control computers, namely, first and second local control
computers, disposed in the rotor assembly” and concludes the Examiner’s
rejection is insufficient because: “The FCCs of White are clearly not
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
7
disposed in a rotor assembly.” Appeal Br. 11. We see no reason that White
must teach a computer location already taught by Sane to arrive at the
claimed subject matter wherein a second computer is placed in the rotor for
the purpose indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 4. As the Examiner adequately
explains:
[T]he teachings of White are not merely the structure of multiple
flight control computers, but rather the concept of using multiple
control computers in general such that transients are accounted
for. The rejection then takes this conceptual teaching and applies
it to the local control computer taught by Sane. The teachings of
White need not be in a local control computer in a rotor assembly
as detailed in Appellant’s disclosure to be applicable.
Ans. 4. “Non-obviousness cannot be shown by attacking references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.

Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 20
We agree with the Examiner’s characterization that the arguments
advanced concerning claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are based on no more
than the arguments advanced concerning claim 1. It is noted that “[37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)iv requires] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than
a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” See In re Lovin 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
8
Claim 13
With regard to claim 13, Appellant argues:
the Examiner cites to ¶13 of Sane and maps an airframe
transceiver module 46 to the signal generator of claim 13. Sane
discloses that the airframe transceiver module 46 is a component
of an airframe controller 42 that is used to send and receive
signals. Sane, however, does not disclose controllability of this
component to terminate a control function in the rotor assembly
as required by claim 13.
Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner responds:
The arguments admit that module (46), noted in Pg. 10 of the
Final Rejection to be discussed in paragraph [0013] of Sane, is
capable of sending and receiving signals. These may be any type
of signals related to controls sent between frame and rotor
assemblies (40, 30) of Sane. Control functions during normal
operation are expected to be changed, in other words stopping a
function and starting a new function. For example, the pitch
angle of a blade is set to different angles, resulting in different
control functions, depending on desired rotor conditions. Thus,
when sending a signal to stop a function, this meets the broadest
reasonable interpretation of being “controllable ... to terminate a
control function”.
Ans. 5.
The problem with the Examiner’s position is the absence of evidence
regarding precisely what types of signals are “sent between frame and rotor
assemblies (40, 30)” over transfer medium 50. The Examiner indicates
without citation or explanation that “[t]hese may be any type of signals
related to controls.” This is unsupported in the evidence of record. The
Examiner recognizes that only a limited subset of “signals related to
controls” would cause changes to a blade orientation controlled in the rotor
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
9
assembly, such as “pitch” in the Examiner’s example. However, the
Examiner does not cite any evidence, and does not set forth any technical
explanation, to demonstrate that the signals passing over transfer medium 50
from the frame assembly 40 to the rotor assembly 30 would be signals of the
type that would change, and thereby “terminate” according to the
Examiner’s reasoning, a control function “in the rotor assembly.”
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 13 on the record presently before us.

Claim 18
The Examiner’s position with regard to claim 18 hinges on an
unreasonably broad claim construction: “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “fault” may be any instance in which a sensor detects an
attribute, such as a position, that the controller wishes to adjust.” Ans. 6.
Under the Examiner’s reasoning normal operating conditions would become
consider a “fault” by virtue of, for example, a pilot’s mere desire to change
directions. The Examiner does not cite to any reference or other extrinsic or
intrinsic evidence to demonstrate “fault” is sufficiently broad to include any
undesired state or state that needs to be changed regardless of whether that
state was intended, expected, or desirable at some point in time.
Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those
skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Even though Appellant’s Specification neither expressly defines,
nor provides specific examples of, what is regarded in this art as a “fault”
(Spec. para. 55), nonetheless, regarding “fault” as something generated by a
mere desire to change course is beyond the ambit of reasonableness. We
Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
10
understand the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “fault” in an
engineering setting to apply here and we understand that ordinary and
customary meaning to refer to some abnormality or malfunction in a
system.3 This does not encompass any position an operator or controller
wishes to adjust. Ans. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection cannot be
sustained based on the Examiner’s unreasonably broad claim construction.

Remaining Claims
The remainingclaims are argued based only on dependency from
independent claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br. 17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, and 20 is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 18 is REVERSED.

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_(technology);
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fault last accessed Dec. 14, 2021.

Appeal 2021-003790
Application 15/980,452
11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Sane, White 1–12, 14–
17, 19, 20
13, 18

RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED IN PART