Ex Parte Hassan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 2017

13114006 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

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. 13/114,006 05/23/2011 Ahmed A. Hassan 05-023 8-US-CIP 1677 122219 7590 08/28/2017 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company One North Franklin, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER BONZELL, PHILIP J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2017 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): bmatthias @ millermatthiashull. com patentadmin @ boeing. com ynunez@millermatthiashull.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AHMED A. HAS SAN, CASEY L. MADSEN, GARRETT M. BILLMAN, and MARY M. BILLMAN Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to an active flow control for transonic flight. Spec. 13. 1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An air vehicle comprising: an airfoil designed for transonic flight, the airfoil having a region of supersonic flow during transonic flight, a surface of the airfoil having upstream and downstream orifices at or within the region; and an active flow control system for controlling air vehicle motion during transonic flight by controlling flow through the orifices to alter strength and location of a shock wave in the region, the system creating an aerodynamic imbalance to move the shock wave. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: (I) Claims 1—5, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Poisson-Quinton. (II) Claims 7, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poisson-Quinton and Glezer. (III) Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poisson-Quinton. REFERENCES Poisson-Quinton Bohning Glezer Hassan US 2,585,676 Feb. 12, 1952 US 5,335,885 Aug. 9, 1994 US 5,988,522 Nov. 23, 1999 US 2005/0040293 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 REJECTIONS 2 Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 (IV) Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Poisson-Quinton and Hassan. (V) Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bohning and Poisson-Quinton. (VI) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bohning, Poisson-Quinton, and Glezer. OPINION Rejection (I) The Examiner finds that Poisson-Quinton discloses each of the limitations of claim 1, including an airfoil designed for transonic flight, a surface of the airfoil having upstream and downstream orifices (46 and 42), and an active flow control system (40 and 43) for controlling flow through the orifices to alter strength and location of a shock wave. See Final Act. 2 (citing Poisson-Quinton, Fig. 14). Appellants argue that Poisson-Quinton does not describe an airfoil designed for transonic flight because “Poisson-Quinton doesn’t use the words transonic, supersonic, or shock wave,” nor does Poisson-Quinton “describe any variables that determine whether transonic conditions exist adjacent the airfoil.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellants assert that “Poisson-Quinton does not describe what the ‘impact wave’ is,” nor does the Examiner “provide any extrinsic evidence explaining what an impact wave is.” Id. The Examiner responds that “transonic flight” is not a structural limitation because it “is just how fast the airfoil is moving so any wing could be introduced to transonic flight at the proper speed.” Ans. 8. The Examiner states that Poisson-Quinton’s impact wave is a shock wave. Id. 3 Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 Appellants reply that the airfoil of claim 1 is designed for transonic flight, because it “has a region of supersonic flow during transonic flight, and the region depends in part on the shape of the air vehicle.” Reply Br. 1. Appellants assert that “Poisson-Quinton only mentions an impact wave,” but “is silent about ‘controlling flow through the orifices to alter strength and location of a shock wave in the region, the system creating an aerodynamic imbalance to move the shock wave.’” Id. at 2. Appellants have the better position here. Not all air vehicles and their associated airfoils are intended for transonic flight, and Appellants’ Specification discloses that “[wjhether transonic conditions exist adjacent the wing 14 during flight depends on variables including the shape of the air vehicle 10 and a Mach number and an angle of attack (a) at which the air vehicle 10 is moving.” Spec. 120. Poisson-Quinton was filed on July 29, 1948, and discloses an air vehicle powered by a turbo-reaction engine and having an airfoil. See Poisson-Quinton, col. 7,11. 24-42; Figs. 14 and 18. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence that a turbo-reaction engine from the year 1948 would deliver sufficient thrust to achieve transonic flight. Nor does the Examiner provide sufficient evidence or adequate technical reasoning to explain why the airfoil of Poisson-Quinton is designed for, or is capable of, transonic flight. Moreover, although we appreciate that Poisson-Quinton discloses an impact wave, the Examiner does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the terms “impact wave” and “shock wave” to refer to the same thing. Furthermore, Poisson-Quinton discloses that the orifices “prevent the air streams at top-speeds, from breaking off in eddies behind the impact wave forming itself downstream of the middle-body of the profile at these 4 Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 speeds.” Id., col. 7,11. 32—36. The Examiner does not explain adequately how preventing eddies behind the impact wave alters the strength and location of a shock wave in a region of supersonic flow, and creates an aerodynamic imbalance to move the shock wave, as required by claim 1. In view of this, the Examiner’s rejection is based on unsupported speculation and unfounded assumptions. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2—5 depending from claim 1. Independent claim 11 includes substantially similar limitations, and the Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning for the rejection of claim 11. See Final Act. 3^4. Appellants advance the same arguments for claim 11. See Appeal Br. 8. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and of claims 14 and 16 depending from claim 11. Rejections (II)—(IV) Rejections (II)—(IV) suffer from the same deficiencies as Rejection (I) (see Final Act. 4—6), and for the reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we also reverse Rejections (II)—(IV), as the Examiner’s modification of Poisson-Quinton and use of Glezer’s and Hassan’s disclosures do not remedy the deficiencies of Poisson-Quinton discussed supra. Rejection (V) Independent claim 17 recites, in part, “drawing air into a first orifice at a beginning of the shock wave and pushing air out of a second orifice at 5 Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 an end of the shock wave such that strength and location of the shock wave is altered to create an aerodynamic imbalance.” The Examiner finds that Bohning discloses most of the limitations of claim 17, but relies on Poisson-Quinton for disclosing drawing air into a first orifice at a beginning of the shock wave and pushing air out of a second orifice at an end of the shock wave. Final Act. 6. The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bohning ’885 with the active flow control system of [Poisson-Quinton]2 in order to eliminate eddies behind the shockwave.” Id. Appellants assert that Bohning does not disclose drawing air into a first orifice and pushing air out of a second orifice, in the manner recited, because “Bohning does just the opposite, by drawing air into the downstream perforations 13 A and sending the air upstream to the exit gap 15.” Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification “chang[es] the principle of operation of Bohning’s system” without evidence that modifying Bohning by “reversing the flow of air would predictably produce the vehicle control described and claimed in the present application.” Id. at 10. The Examiner responds that Bohning discloses one way of “moving and changing the strength of a shock wave thru a system that sucks air in and blows it out,” and that the modification based on Poisson-Quinton is proper because “Poisson-Quinton . . . shows a different way to alter shock waves.” Ans. 10. 2 The Examiner’s reference to Lurz (US 4,664,345, iss. May 12, 1987) is a typographical error. See Ans. 10. 6 Appeal 2016-002083 Application 13/114,006 Appellants reiterate that “the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Bohning.” Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that there is insufficient evidence “that modifying element 15 [of Bohning] and reversing the flow of air would predictably produce the vehicle control” required by claim 17. Appeal Br. 10. As discussed supra, in Rejection (1), the Examiner has not established adequately that Poisson-Quinton’s disclosure of preventing eddies behind the impact wave, alters the strength and location of a shock wave. Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Bohning and Poisson-Quinton disclose known alternative methods to alter shock waves. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and of claims 18 and 20 depending from claim 17. Rejection (VI) The Examiner’s use of Glezer does not remedy the deficiencies in Rejection (V). For the same reason stated above in connection with Rejection (V), we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 7