745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984), 84-775, In re Piasecki
| Citation | 745 F.2d 1468 |
| Party Name | 223 U.S.P.Q. 785 In re Frank N. PIASECKI and Donald N. Meyers. |
| Case Date | October 17, 1984 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Page 1468
Page 1469
Willard M. Hanger, Washington, D.C., argued for appellants. With him on brief was Kenneth J. Meyers, Washington, D.C.
Robert D. Edmonds, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C.
Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals sustaining the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 of claims 29-52 of patent application serial No. 84,234.
Appellants Piasecki and Meyers have applied for letters patent on a new type of air vehicle which may be broadly described as a lighter-than-air craft or airship having the aerodynamic propulsion and control features of the helicopter. The invention relates to air transport of very heavy loads, weighing up to a hundred tons or more. It is especially suited to the transport of large integrated loads such as power plant assemblies and other bulky and heavy prefabricated structures which require precision transport from site to site and which are not amenable to traditional modes of transport. The issue is whether this air vehicle would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103. The Board of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, so held.
The Invention and the Prior Art
Helicopters are used for vertical-lift, short-haul transport, but normal helicopter lifting capacity is limited to approximately ten tons. Appellants point out that the potential of helicopters to lift heavy loads is inherently limited; the payload/gross weight ratio of helicopters is such that neither larger helicopters nor multiple helicopter systems can achieve a sufficient increase in capacity to handle loads of the magnitude here contemplated.
Lighter-than-air craft are a known, alternative form of transport capable of air-lifting large payloads with significantly greater efficiency than aerodynamically supported vehicles such as helicopters. However, a large elongated aerostat is a slow-responding vehicle which is unstable in yaw and pitch. Its capability of precisely controlled hover flight, critical in lifting and depositing payloads to and from precise locations, is extremely poor and highly vulnerable to even mild weather conditions. Due to these limitations, airships are not suitable for the precision transportation of ultra-heavy, large structures.
Appellants' vehicle combines the virtues of both helicopter and airship transport while eliminating the disadvantages of each. Their vehicle is capable of transporting ultra-heavy loads with precision and under varied weather conditions. According to their invention, the hull of an aerostat is fitted with multiple thrust-producing rotors such as those of helicopters. As explained by appellants, since the magnitude of the standard airship elevator and
Page 1470
rudder forces vary as the square of the airspeed, these controls are not effective at low airspeeds. The helicopter rotors provide not only translational propulsion along the desired flight path, but also provide attitude control for the hull--a result not heretofore achieved at low or zero airspeeds.
Each rotor includes multiple blades whose pitch is controlled collectively and cyclically in the manner of conventional helicopter rotors. (Collective pitch control is the modification of all the blades of a rotor simultaneously to change the total amount of thrust generated by the rotor. Cyclic pitch control is the establishment of each blade of a rotor at a different pitch as the blade passes through a selected sector of each rotor revolution to affect the direction in which the rotor thrust is directed.) The controls of each of the rotors are connected through a central integrated control system to a set of flight controls operable by a pilot. The central control system establishes pitch settings in each of the rotors for propulsion--horizontally, vertically, or transversely--and at the same time maintains the hull at the required attitude of pitch, yaw, and roll.
Claim 29 is illustrative:
29. A vectored thrust airship comprising an aerostat hull containing a lighter-than-air gas, at least two pairs of thrust producing units each having a horizontally disposed main rotor with controllable pitch blades and means controlling the pitch of said main rotor blades collectively and cyclically to include longitudinal and lateral cyclic pitch control, means attaching said thrust units to said aerostat hull such that each of a first of said pairs are attached to said hull on opposite sides of the airship longitudinal axis forwardly of the center of mass of said airship and each of a second of said pairs are attached to said hull on opposite sides of the airship longitudinal axis rearwardly of said center of mass, power means connected to the main rotors of each said thrust unit rotor for rotating the rotor blades, a master flight control including a translational control for control of the translational motion of the airship along and perpendicular to its longitudinal axis and an attitude control for control of the angular attitude of the airship about its center of mass, said translational control including a longitudinal translational control for control of the airship motion longitudinally of its axis and a vertical translational control for control of the airship vertical translational motion perpendicular to its axis, said attitude control including a pitch control for control of the airship attitude in pitch and a yaw control for control of the airship attitude in yaw, means interconnecting said main rotor pitch control means of each of said thrust units and said master flight control for the similar actuation of said main rotor pitch control means of said two pairs of thrust units upon operation of a translational control and for differential actuation of the rotor pitch control means of two thrust units located on one side of said airship center of mass and two thrust units located on the other side of said center of mass upon operations of an attitude control, operation of said longitudinal translational control establishing similar actuation of the main rotor longitudinal cyclic pitch control means of said main rotor, operation of said vertical translational control establishing similar actuation of the main rotor collective pitch control means of said main rotors, and operation of said pitch control establishing a differential actuation of the main rotor blade collective pitch control means of the main rotors of the thrust units forwardly of and rearwardly of the airship center of mass.
Variations having vertically oriented, supplementary tail rotors associated with each of the main horizontally oriented rotors are the subject of claims 36-45. Further variations having shrouded supplementary tail rotors associated with the main rotors are the subject of claims 46-52.
Proceedings before the Patent Examiner and the Board of Appeals
The claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 as obvious in view of various combinations of the following five references:
Page 1471
United States patent No. 1,615,002 to Avery, which describes a conventional airship having propulsive propellers (airplane type) facing or rotatable to face in different directions.
United States patent No. 1,821,158 to Howland, which describes a dirigible having four propulsive propeller systems (airplanes) attached.
United States patent No. 3,008,665 to Piasecki, which describes an assembly of a pair of independently operated helicopters interconnected by a beam to which a gas-filled balloon is tethered.
United States patent No. 3,222,012 to Piasecki, which describes a slip stream deflector tail assembly for a helicopter.
United States patent No. 3,656,723 to Piasecki et al., which describes an assembly of rigidly interconnected helicopters having a master control system through which the pitch settings of each rotor are controlled.
Claims 29-39 were rejected under section 103 as obvious over Piasecki '665 in view of Piasecki '723. The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to provide the rotors attached to the balloon in Piasecki '665 with a master control system similar to that disclosed in Piasecki '723.
Claims 40-45 were rejected under section 103 as obvious over the Piasecki '665 and '723 patents as applied above and further in view of Avery. The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to provide each lifting rotor of the combination of Piasecki '665 and '723 with transverse thrust rotors for yaw control as taught by Avery.
Claims 29-33, 36-40, and 46-52 were rejected under section 103 as obvious over Howland in view of the Piasecki '012 and '723 patents. The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references to produce the claimed invention.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Patel (Fed Cir 2014)
...F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029 (CCPA 1980) and In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746 (Fed. C......
-
In re Packard (Fed. Cir. 2014)
...amend, argue, or both in response. The panel noted that the Court has expressly approved this "procedural mechanism" in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984), placing the initial burden of rejection (establishing a prima facie case) on the Office (through its examiners). That proce......
-
A realistic approach to the obviousness of inventions.
...... allocat[ing] ... the burdens of going forward and ... persuasion," not a substantive standard for breaking ties. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Philippe Signore, There is Something Fishy About a Presumption of Obviousness, 84 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 148......
-
Atypical inventions.
...When the applicant submits rebuttal evidence, the examiner must "start over" and "consider all of the evidence anew." In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (111) Absent any other grounds of unpatentability, the applicant is entitled to the patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d......
-
Foresight bias in patent law.
...(Fed. Cir. 1985) (applying the prima facie case to [section] 101). (172) See supra note 164 and accompanying text. (173) In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. (174) In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. (175) Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (176) See sup......
-
The inducement standard of patentability.
...the lower court's opinion that such licenses are "strong indicia that the patent is not obvious"). (249.) See, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (250.) See, e.g., Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("Another indicia of non-o......