Ex Parte Zubkow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2012

11531591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZYGMUNT ZUBKOW and JEFF HEGG ____________ Appeal 2010-012340 Application 11/531,591 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 10-15. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-012340 Application 11/531,591 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 10 is the independent claim on appeal and is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 10. A method of compensating for attitude error in an exoatmospheric device, the method comprising: receiving spin data from a spin axis gyroscope in the exoatmospheric device, wherein the spin data contains angular rotation measurements of the exoatmospheric device about the spin axis, the exoatmospheric device spinning in complete rotations about the spin axis; receiving angular oscillation data from at least one off-spin axis gyroscope, wherein the angular oscillation data contains angular rotation measurements of angular oscillation of the spin axis of the exoatmospheric device; analyzing a correlation between the spin data and the angular oscillation data to detect attitude error; and adjusting the attitude of the exoatmospheric device by adjusting navigation calculations when attitude error is detected. REJECTION Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fowell (US 6,032,903, issued March 7, 2000) and Brainard (US 5,476,239, issued December 19, 1995). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10-15 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Fowell in view of the teachings of Brainard? Specifically, do the combined teachings of Fowell and Brainard Appeal 2010-012340 Application 11/531,591 3 disclose “analyzing a correlation between the spin data and the angular oscillation data to detect attitude error? ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 10-15 as unpatentable over Fowell and Brainard The Examiner’s rejection is grounded in part on the Examiner’s findings that the comparator (130) disclosed in Fowell analyzes “a correlation between the spin data and the angular oscillation data to detect attitude error” as required by claims 10-15. Ans. 4. Appellants correctly point out that the Examiner’s findings with respect to this feature are incorrect. Reply Br. 1-2. Specifically, Fowell provides an estimator 128 which utilizes spin data and angular oscillation data to calculate an estimated position vector and rotational velocity vector. These estimates are then compared to desired values in a comparator 130. See, e.g., Fowell at col. 5, ll. 4-20. Neither the estimator nor the comparator “correlate” spin data to oscillation data because as Appellants correctly point out, “analyzing a correlation between the spin data and the angular oscillation data” requires some relation exist between the data, which tends to vary, be associated, or occur together. Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner relies upon Brainard for teaching placing gyroscopes on the spin and off-spin axes. Ans. 4. However, the Examiner cites to nothing in Brainard which teaches correlating spin data with angular oscillation data. Thus, the rejection of claims 10-15 as unpatentable over Fowell and Brainard is not sustained. Appeal 2010-012340 Application 11/531,591 4 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fowell and Brainard is reversed.1 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED. REVERSED mls 1 The Board notes that Claim 13 uses the phrase “roll data” which is not found in independent claim 10. The Board assumes “roll data” should instead be “spin data.”