Duong, Hung et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2020

14617428 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2020)

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.
14/617,428 02/09/2015 Hung Duong 79629US01;
67097-3152PUS1
3514
54549 7590 01/07/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUNG DUONG and NATHAN SNAPE
Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–7, 13, 14, and 16–23. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gearbox for gas turbine engine. Claim 14,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
14. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a core that includes a turbine shaft configured to rotate
about an engine axis;
a tower shaft coupled to the turbine shaft;
a gearbox mounted to the core and oriented longitudinally
in a direction of the engine axis, the gearbox includes:
a housing that includes a cavity provided between
opposing first and second mounting surfaces,
an input gear shaft coupled to the tower shaft,
a drive gear connected to first and second shaft
portions that respectively extend to the first and second
mounting surfaces, the drive gear configured to rotate
about a gear axis,
first and second accessory drive components
respectively mounted to the first and second mounting
surfaces and respectively coupled to the first and second
shaft portions; and
wherein the gear axis lies entirely within a horizontal plane
that is perpendicular to a vertical plane through the engine axis,
wherein the engine axis lies entirely within the vertical plane.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Price US 2,638,744 May 19, 1953
Guillot US 3,722,214 Mar. 27, 1973
Morris US 2005/0103931 A1 May 19, 2005
Cloft US 2009/0000308 A1 Jan. 1, 2009
Deperrois US 2009/0232640 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Suciu US 2011/0289936 A1 Dec. 1, 2011

Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16–19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Deperrois and Price. Final Act. 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Deperrois, Price, and Suciu. Final Act. 6.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deperrois, Price, and Morris. Final Act. 6.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deperrois, Price, Cloft, and Suciu. Final Act. 7.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Deperrois, Price, and Guillot. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
Claim 14, the sole independent claim, is the only claim argued on the
merits with the remaining claims and rejections argued based on
dependency. App. Br. 3–5. The Examiner concluded it would have been
obvious to orient the gearbox of Deperrois in the manner taught by Price.
Final Act. 2–4.
Appellant argues Deperrois is specifically designed to be mounted
such that the gearbox is oriented circumferentially around the engine as
opposed to “longitudinally” resulting in a gear axis and engine axis that do
not exhibit the relationship recited. App. Br. 3. Appellant further contends,
interpreting the axis of Price’s power take-off shafts 66 as the recited “gear
axis,” that Price also does not exhibit the recited relationship between the
gear and engine axis. App. Br. 4.
As to Appellant’s second contention, it is not clear why Appellant
regarded the axis of power take-off shafts 66 as the recited “gear axis”
Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
4
because the Examiner did not give any indication the Examiner was doing
so. Arguments must address the Examiner’s action. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We recognize that the Examiner does not appear to have
cited Price’s gear 78 by reference numeral. However, the Examiner cited
Price’s gearbox 76, which contains gear 78 and drew a line directly through
the rotational axis of gear 78 to identify the recited “horizontal plane” in
which the recited “gear axis lies.” Final Act. 4 (annotating Price Figure 3 (as
noted by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Figure 3 of Price in the Answer has been
rotated 90o from the side elevation view of Figure 1, making the actual
horizontal and vertical direction also rotated 90o from the horizontal and
vertical directions as viewed in Figure 3)); see also Ans. 5–6. Thus, it should
have been readily apparent2 that the Examiner was relying the rotational axis
of Price’s gear 78 to define the recited “gear axis” and not Price’s power
take-off shaft 66. Ans. 3. Appellant’s misapprehension of the Examiner’s
analysis renders Appellant’s second argument inapposite.
Regarding Appellant’s first argument, Appellant does not apprise us
of sufficient evidence to demonstrate, or technical reasoning to explain why,
there would be any significant technological challenges associated with
reorienting the gear box of Deperrois like that of Price. App. Br. 3; Reply
Br. 1–2. Although the evidence is not entirely clear on the point,3 even

2 See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“When a reference is complex or shows
or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the
particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The
pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained”)
(emphasis added)
3 Reference numeral 14 (Fig. 3) in Deperrois is used to refer to the “front
side face” of the gearbox. However, Deperrois does not appear to expressly
indicate that the front side of the gearbox faces the same way as the front
side of the engine.
Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
5
assuming, that Appellant is correct that Deperrois’s gearbox was intended to
mount circumferentially, this fact, without more, does not apprise us of error
in a rejection under § 103, as opposed to § 102, and predicated on modifying
Deperrois to arrive at the claimed subject matter. “Non-obviousness cannot
be shown by attacking references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon the teachings of a combination of references.” See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). If
there were, as Appellant asserts, technical difficulties associated with
orienting gearboxes, and gears within them, in the manner claimed and
illustrated by Price, Price demonstrates that they have long been resolved. “It
is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings
from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fact that
judgment and mechanical skill may be required to arrive at a particular
combination does not necessarily mean that particular combination
constitutes a nonobvious invention. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas
City, 383 US 1, 10–12 (discussing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248
(1851)). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity,
and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further
modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“the [obviousness] analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2019-003204
Application 14/617,428
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 7,
13, 14, 16–
19, 23
103 Deperrois, Price 1–3, 6, 7,
13, 14, 16–
19, 23

5 103 Deperrois, Price,
Suciu
5
20 103 Deperrois, Price,
Morris
20
21 103 Deperrois, Price,
Cloft, Suciu
21
22 103 Deperrois, Price,
Guillot
22
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7,
13, 14, 16–
23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED