Damien Reveillon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2019

14315088 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2019)

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.
14/315,088 06/25/2014 Damien REVEILLON EUR0614PUSA 9230
22045 7590 09/16/2019
Brooks Kushman
1000 Town Center
22nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
ZAMORA ALVAREZ, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAMIEN REVEILLON and LAURENT BIANCHI
____________

Appeal 2017-0115351
Application 14/315,0882
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 30,
2017), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 13, 2017), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 14, 2017), and the Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed Dec. 30, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Airbus Helicopters.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to a
blade with reduced torsional rigidity intended for a rotor, and to a rotor
equipped with such a blade. More specifically, this blade is intended for an
aircraft propeller, or for a tail rotor of a rotary-wing aircraft.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. Rotor blade with reduced torsional rigidity, including:
an outer covering extending along a pitch-variation axis of
a first extremal area to a second extremal area, with the outer
covering including an extrados skin and an intrados skin;
structural means linking the blade to a hub of the rotor; and
a cavity defined by the outer covering, with the cavity
being filled by a filling material;
wherein the filling material includes at least one partition
parallel to a chord of the blade and at least two independent
blocks made of filling material filling the cavity along a span of
the blade.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 15–193 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.

3 The Examiner lists independent claim 20 in the first paragraph for this
rejection. See Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner does not otherwise
discuss this claim in the body of the rejection. Thus, we consider the listing
of this claim in this rejection to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bianchi4 in view of Zuardy.5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 2–5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bianchi in view of Zuardy and Brunken.6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bianchi in view of Zuardy and Brogdon.7
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner interprets the term “active
twisting means” as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(f) (Final Act. 6), and Appellants do not “object” to this interpretation
(Reply Br. 2). As such, if the Specification failed to disclose a
corresponding structure for performing this active-twisting function, the
Examiner would be correct that claim 11 is indefinite. See Final Action 5–6.
However, the Specification discloses that the active-twisting function can be
performed by “one or more movable flaps” that are “added locally to the
extension of the trailing edge of the blade,” by “[p]iezoelectric fibers” that
are “incorporated into the extrados skin and/or the intrados skin of the
blade,” or by making “extrados and intrados skins of the blade” (at least
locally) “of anisotropic composite materials.” Spec. ¶ 20. Thus, the
Specification sufficiently describes at least one specific structure for

4 Bianchi et al., US 2011/0211959 A1, pub. Sept. 1, 2011.
5 Zuardy et al., US 2012/0020801 A1, pub. Jan. 26, 2012.
6 Brunken, JR., US 2013/0089422 A1, pub. Apr. 11, 2013.
7 Brogdon et al., US 4,306,837, iss. Dec. 22, 1981.
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

4
performing the active-twisting function of the means-plus-function
limitation recited in claim 11.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11
here.
Claims 15–19
The Examiner determines that claim 15 is indefinite based on the
recitation of “reduced torsional rigidity” and “the same density.” Final
Act. 8. In particular, the Examiner finds that “reduced torsional rigidity” is a
relative term and the Specification does not provide a standard for it such
that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the invention.” Id. The Examiner also finds that the recitation of
“the same density” lacks antecedent basis. Id. The Examiner rejects
claims 16–19 based on their dependency from claim 15. Id.
We do not sustain this rejection. First, we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand the recitation of “a reduced torsional
rigidity” in the context of the claim such that the blocks and partitions are
configured in a way that provides reduced torsional rigidity over other
configurations. The Specification provides that “the number of partitions in
the filling material of the blade directly affects the torsional rigidity of the
blade” and that “[a]s the number of partitions increases, the torsional rigidity
of the blade is further reduced.” Spec. ¶ 55. Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that a configuration in which no partitions are
provided would provide for the maximum torsional rigidity, thereby setting
the standard of rigidity.
We also find that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
understand that “the same density” refers to the density of “the at least two
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

5
blocks” recited in the claim. One would understand that the blocks
necessarily have “a density” and that the limitation at issue merely requires
that this density be the same for “the at least two blocks.”
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15–
19 here.
Rejection 2
Claims 1 and 6–13
The Examiner finds that Bianchi discloses a rotor blade as claimed,
except that Bianchi does not disclose that the cavity of the blade “is filled
with a filling material wherein the filling material includes at least one
partition parallel to a chord of the [] blade and at least two independent
blocks made of filling material filling the cavity.” Final Act. 9 (citing
Bianchi Fig. 1; ¶¶ 3, 53, 53, 92, 98). However, the Examiner finds that
Zuardy “teaches a structural element for an aircraft provided with a variable
material density core” having at least one partition as claimed. Id. at 10
(citing Zuardy Fig. 5; ¶¶ 32, 33). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Bianchi in view of Zuardy such that Bianchi
includes a filling material with partitions as claimed “because this
configuration allows for the optimization of the natural vibration behavior
and the dynamic properties of the blade.” Id. (citing Zuardy ¶ 33).
Appellants argue only that one of ordinary skill “would not combine
Bianchi and Zuardy to provide a rotor blade with reduced torsional rigidity
as required by claim[] 1 . . . with the partitions positioned spanwise to
control and reduce torsional rigidity.” Appeal Br. 8–9. We are not
persuaded because, as explained below, we do not construe claim 1 as
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

6
requiring any specific structure for reducing the torsional rigidity of the rotor
blade.
“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests
for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications
Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “If the claim preamble, when read
in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the
claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim,
then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the
claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, claim 1 recites a “[r]otor blade with reduced
torsional rigidity” in the claim preamble, but the body of the claim does not
recite structure that is tied to the preamble limitation of “reduced torsional
rigidity.” This recitation is not tied to any specific structure claimed and is
not necessary to give life to the claim because the claim recites a complete
structure without it. See Ans. 8.
Thus, we find that Appellants’ arguments regarding torsional rigidity
do not persuade us of reversible error with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 6–13, for which Appellants do not present separate
arguments.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19
We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 15 because this
claim specifically requires structure that is configured “to provide a reduced
torsional rigidity for the blade” and the Examiner has not explained
adequately that the combination of art includes such a configuration or that
such a configuration would have been obvious in view of the art.
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

7
With respect to this claim, the Examiner relies on Bianchi and Zuardy
in substantially the same manner as with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 12–
13. With respect to the specific recitation in claim 15 that at least two
blocks and at least one partition are “configured to provide a reduced
torsional rigidity for the blade,” the Examiner finds that “the blade disclosed
by the combination of [Bianchi] and [Zuardy] is capable of being configured
to provide a reduced torsional rigidity for the rotor blade.” Id. at 13. In the
Answer, the Examiner also finds that Bianchi discloses optimizing the twist
of the blade and using a filling material that does not impede twisting of the
blade and possibly enhances it. Ans. 7–8 (citing Bianchi ¶¶ 64, 72). The
Examiner further finds that “[s]ince the same structural limitations are
disclosed by the combination of Bianchi and Zuardy, the structure disclosed
is capable of performing the functional limitations recited.” Id. at 8.
We find error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim as
requiring only structure that is merely capable of providing reduced torsional
rigidity. Claim 15 specifically requires that “the at least two blocks and the
at least one partition [are] configured to provide a reduced torsional rigidity
for the blade.” Further, the Specification makes clear that the blade is
specifically designed with partitions to control torsional rigidity. The
Specification is concerned with limiting detachment of airflows in the lead
edge or trailing edge profile of a blade by “allowing the blade to twist
geometrically in relation to itself.” Spec. ¶ 8. The Specification discloses
that the goal of the invention is to provide a blade in which the torsional
rigidity of the blade is separated “from its other mechanical characteristics,
so as to obtain reduced torsional rigidity of the blade about its longitudinal
axis without significantly modifying its other mechanical characteristics.”
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

8
Id. at 26. The Specification describes that, “in an unexpected way, the
presence of one or more transverse partitions in the filling material of the
blade . . . makes it possible to reduce the torsional rigidity of the blade, ”
which “makes it possible to retain this concept of controlling the twisting of
the blade,” and “because the filling material is not a structural element of the
blade, the primary mechanical characteristics of the blade (apart from its
torsional rigidity) are not affected by the presence of these partitions.” Id. at
¶¶ 41–43. Thus, the Specification makes clear that it is the specific
placement of partitions in the filling material of the blade that provides the
ability to control torsional rigidity of the blade without affecting other
mechanical properties of the blade.
Thus, when we construe this claim language in light of the
Specification, claim 15 requires more than a filling material capable of
providing reduced torsional rigidity; claim 15 requires that the blocks and
partition are specifically designed to accomplish this function. See Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d. 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (noting that claim language “configured to” is construed more
narrowly than “capable of” and holding that where claim language including
the phrase “adapted to” is to be construed consisted with “configured to”
language it requires that the structure must be “designed or configured to
accomplish the specified objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve
that purpose.”) Thus, to the extent the Examiner simply relies on Zuardy’s
disclosure of multiple blocks and partitions as being capable of providing
reduced torsional rigidity, the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient
showing that Zuardy teaches blocks and partitions configured as claimed.
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

9
Further, although the Examiner indicates that Bianchi provides
teaching regarding reduced rigidity, the Examiner does not explain why
these teachings would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Bianchi in view of Zuardy such that Bianchi’s device includes at least two
blocks and at least one partition configured as claimed.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16, 18, and 19 for the same
reasons.
Claim 20
Claim 20 requires a series of blocks and a series of partitions that “are
positioned spanwise to control torsional rigidity for the blade.” Appeal Br.
Claims App. 4. Although claim 20 does not use the same “configured to”
language as claim 15, we determine that the rejection of this claim includes
reversible error for similar reasons. In particular, although the “configured
to” language is absent from claim 20, the claim nonetheless requires that the
partitions are placed in positioned “to control” rigidity. We find this
language requires more than the mere capability of partitions affecting
torsional rigidity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
the partitions are placed in the cavity in order to specifically alter the
torsional rigidity of the blade. As above, when we construe the claim
language in light of the Specification, claim 20 requires more than the mere
capability of providing torsional rigidity; claim 20 requires a series of blocks
and partitions that are specifically designed to control torsional rigidity.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20.
Rejection 3
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

10
Claims 2–5 and 17
We are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 2–5 and
17. These claims each includes a requirement that at least one strip is
inserted between two adjacent blocks of the filling material. See Appeal Br.
Claims App. 1, 3. We determine that the Examiner has not provided an
adequate reason to support the conclusion of obviousness.
With respect to claim 2, for example, the Examiner acknowledges that
Bianchi and Zuardy do not teach a strip inserted into each partition to
separate adjacent blocks as claimed. Final Act. 15. The Examiner relies on
Brunken to fill this deficiency. The Examiner finds that Brunken “teaches
inserting a thin layer of material between a lower skin adapter . . . and a nose
cap” in order to “minimize frictional resistance and wear between the lower
skin adapter and the nose cap.” Id. at 16 (citing Brunken Fig. 4, ¶ 18). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to insert a thin layer
between the partitions in Zuardy’s core “because this configuration
minimizes frictional resistance and wear between two core segments that
may slide and contact with one another.” Id.
We determine that the Examiner reasoning for the proposed
combination is not supported adequately. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)) (An obviousness rejection must be based on “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”) Given the purpose of selecting the particular core material in
Zuardy, the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it beneficial to include a strip between core segments as
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

11
the Examiner proposes. As Appellants note, Zuardy is concerned with
providing a structural element that
has a mass distribution within the structural element by means of
the varying material density of the core, in such a way that a
predetermined natural vibration frequency of the structural
element is ensured in order to optimise the natural vibration
behaviour thereof, whereby the aeroelastic and/or structural
dynamic properties of the structural element can advantageously
be influenced.
Zuardy ¶ 14. To this end, Zuardy discloses that “the mass distribution
within the structural element 1 is configured by means of the varying
material density of the core 2 in such a way that a natural vibration
frequency of the structural element 1 is reduced.” Id. at ¶ 33. The Examiner
does not explain how the “natural vibration frequency” of the core would be
affected by the inclusion of strips as proposed. Further, we find merit in
Appellants’ argument that “[b]y decoupling or separating the adjacent
segments of Zuardy, a discontinuity would be created in the core material”
that would likely alter the vibration frequency and negatively affect control
of the vibration frequency. The Examiner does not explain adequately why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include strips
between the sections of the core in light of the effect that such strips are
likely to have on the ability to control the vibration frequency. Accordingly,
we are persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2–5 and 17 for this reason.
Rejection 4
With respect to the rejection of claim 14, Appellants argue only that
Brogdon does not cure the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. See
Appeal 2017-011535
Application 14/315,088

12
Appeal Br. 13. However we found no such deficiency in the rejection of
claim 1, and thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 14.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 11 and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b).
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 6–14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2–5 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART