Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

11312410 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HUAGENG LUO and CRAIG DOUGLAS YOUNG ____________ Appeal 2010-009429 Application 11/312,410 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Huageng Luo and Craig Douglas Young (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Southward (US 5,551,650; iss. Sep. 3, 1996). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-009429 Application 11/312,410 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to an apparatus and method for providing active vibration isolation at an engine mount to prevent engine vibration from propagating from an aircraft engine into the wings and fuselage of an aircraft.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An engine mount vibration control system, comprising: at least one engine mount which couples an engine to an engine support structure; at least one active vibration element positioned in the vicinity of said at least one engine mount such that said at least one active vibration element provides an actuation force on at least one of said engine and said support structure; at least one vibration sensor mounted on said engine to detect a vibration in said engine; at least one vibration sensor mounted on said support structure to detect a vibration in support structure; and a controller which receives a signal from said at least one sensor and controls said at least one active vibration element based on said received signal from said at least one vibration sensor; wherein the controller is configured to adjust control parameters using a combined feedback and feed forward control. ISSUE The issue presented by this appeal is whether Southward discloses “at least one vibration sensor mounted on said support structure to detect a Appeal 2010-009429 Application 11/312,410 3 vibration in support structure” as called for in independent claim 1 and “sensing a vibration of a support structure to which the engine is mounted” as called for in independent claim 10. ANALYSIS The Examiner determined that “Figure 1 [of Southward] discloses vibration sensors (18) place[d] in the mounts between the engines and the support structures . . . .” Ans. 4. See also Ans. 8 (in which the Examiner states that Figure 1 of Southward shows that sensor measurements (via sensor 18) are taken “from the wing/fuselage or engine mount”). Claim 1 recites “at least one engine mount which couples an engine to an engine support structure” and “at least one vibration sensor mounted on said support structure to detect a vibration in [said] support structure.” Thus, the language of claim 1 distinguishes between the “support structure” and the “engine mount” which couples the engine to the support structure. Further, the Specification describes that “[t]he active element is controlled based on the responses from motion/vibration sensors which are placed before and/or after the engine mount structure such that the transmissibility is reduced in the engine operation range.” Spec., para. [0022], emphasis added. The Specification does not describe motion/vibration sensors mounted on the engine mount structure. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim language in light of the Specification would not understand “support structure” of claims 1 and 10 to encompass the engine mount. Appeal 2010-009429 Application 11/312,410 4 Southward discloses placing “two or more sensors 18 on the structure side of the mount.” Col. 3, ll. 36-37; fig. 1 (emphasis added). More particularly, Southward discloses that “[e]rror sensors 18 may be positioned anywhere on the air-frame side of the mount and are shown here attached to the exterior of center frame 24 [of active mounts 12, 14].” Col. 4, ll. 62-64; figs. 2, 3. Center frame 24 is connected to the engine. Col. 4, ll. 60-61. Thus, Southward’s sensors 18 are mounted on the engine mount and take measurements from the engine mount. Southward’s sensors 18 are not “mounted on said support structure” as called for in claim 1, and Southward does not disclose “sensing a vibration of a support structure to which the engine is mounted” as called for in claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). CONCLUSION Southward does not disclose “at least one vibration sensor mounted on said support structure to detect a vibration in support structure” as called for in independent claim 1 and “sensing a vibration of a support structure to which the engine is mounted” as called for in independent claim 10. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18. REVERSED hh