Ex Parte Arnold

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13622652 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/622,652 09/19/2012 Jason Arnold 63187US01; 1044
67097-2068US1
54549 7590 12/04/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
EDGAR, RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON ARNOLD
(Applicant: United Technologies Corp.)
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 13/622,652
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, BRETT C. MARTIN and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
3 decision finally rejecting claims 1—5 and 25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
4 § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cooper (US 4,892,432, iss. Jan. 9, 1990);
5 and claim 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
6 Cooper and Metall (GB 1 514 690, publ. June 21, 1977). Claims 7—24 and
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Applicant,
United Technologies Corporation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
26—28 are not subject to rejection.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The appealed claims relate to a balance ring that may be installed in a
cooling hole in a cover plate in a turbine engine. One such balance ring 70
is depicted in perspective in Appellant’s Figure 3, reproduced below:
The balance ring 70 includes a ring body 82 split on one side to allow
the ring to expand or contract resiliently. The ring body 82 defines a first
axial thickness 7), that is, a thickness defined along an axis 80 of the ring
body so as to correspond to a height of the ring body were the ring body laid
flat on a horizontal surface. (See Spec., para. 47). When installed in a
2 Rejections of claims 7—16, 21, 23, 24 and 26—28 were withdrawn on
page 2 of the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 10, 2016.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
cooling hole 74 in a cover plate 72, the first axial thickness might be less
than, or equal to, a thickness of the cooling hole. (See Spec., Fig. 2).
First and second opposing ends 86, 88 adjacent the split 90 in the ring
body 82 mount retaining features 96 for retaining the balance ring in the
cooling hole 74. (See Spec., para. 48). Each retaining feature 96 includes a
first portion 104 extending in an axial direction; and a pair of second
portions 110 extending radially outwardly from the two axially-outer ends of
the first portion. (See Spec., paras. 50 & 51). Together, the first and second
portions 104,110 as depicted in Figure 3 define annular channels. The
retaining portions 96 define second axial thicknesses 77 greater than the first
axial thickness 77 defined by the ring body 82. The second axial thicknesses
73 as depicted in Figure 3 are sufficient so that the edges of a cooling hole
74 into which the balance ring 70 is installed will fit into the annular channel
defined by the first and second portions 104,110. In order to install the
balance ring 70 into a cooling hole 74, the ring body 82 is compressed; the
balance ring is positioned in the hole; and the ring body is permitted to
expand so that the annular channel defined by the first and second portions
104,110 embraces the edges of the cooling hole to retain the balance ring in
the hole. (See Spec., para. 52).
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal:
1. A ring comprising:
a ring body having a central portion surrounding an axis
and extending to first and second opposing ends separated by a
split, the central portion having a first axial thickness;
at least one retaining feature formed on the ring body, the
at least one retaining feature having a second axial thickness
greater than the first axial thickness, and wherein the at least one
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
retaining feature includes opposing gripping surfaces configured
to clamp a structure therebetween for movement therewith.
ISSUES
The Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6 and 25 separately. The Appellant
argues the patentability of claims 4 and 5 together with that of claim 1; and
the patentability of claim 3 together with that of claim 2. (See generally
App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—9). This appeal turns on two issues:
First, does Cooper describe a ring satisfying the limitations of claims
1, 2 and 25?
Second, would the subject matter of claim 6 have been obvious from
the combined teachings of Cooper and Metall?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Cooper
1. Cooper anticipates claims 1, 2 and 25.
2. Cooper describes a spring clip for connecting gears so that the
gears rotate independently about a shaft but move axially together along the
shaft. (See Cooper, col. 4,11. 24—26; col. 5,11. 33—36; & col. 5,11. 49-60).
3. Cooper’s spring clip, as depicted in Figures 7 and 8, includes a
cylindrical web 41 split at 42. (See Cooper, col. 6,11. 3—10). As depicted in
Figure 7, the cylindrical spring clip 41 has opposing ends adjacent the split
42.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
4. Flanges 43, 44 extend radially from the two axial ends of the
cylindrical web 41. Annular gaps 45, 46 separate the flanges 43, 44. (See
Cooper, col. 6,11. 3—10). Figure 8 depicts the flanges 43, 44 as being formed
unitarily with the cylindrical web 41.
5. In particular, the spring clip as depicted in Figure 7 of Cooper
includes a first pair of radial flanges, one flange of the pair extending
radially from each axial end of the cylindrical web at one opposing end
adjacent the split 42; and a second pair of radial flanges, one flange of the
pair extending radially from each axial end of the cylindrical web at the
other opposing end adjacent the split 42.
6. The cylindrical web 41 of Cooper’s spring clip corresponds to
the ring body recited in claim 1. The portion of the cylindrical web 41
between the two pairs of radial flanges at the opposing ends adjacent the
split 42 corresponds to the central portion recited in claim 1. The central
portion surrounds an axis indicated by the vertex of the sight-lines 8—8 as
shown in Figure 7. The central portion of the cylindrical web 41 as depicted
in Figure 7 extends to the first and second opposing ends separated by the
split 41.
7. The two pairs of flanges extending from the opposing ends of
the cylindrical web 41 of Cooper’s spring clip correspond to the retaining
features recited in claim 1. Inner surfaces of the pairs of flanges correspond
to the gripping surfaces recited in claim 1.
8. The cylindrical web as depicted in Figure 8 has a first axial
thickness defined between the radially extending flanges 43, 44. This is the
thickness of the cylindrical web 41 in the gaps 45, 46 between the flanges
43, 44. The pairs of flanges extending radially outwardly from the opposing
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
ends of the cylindrical web 41, as depicted in Figure 8, are positioned axially
outwardly from cylindrical web. The contour lines in Figure 7 indicate that
the gaps 45, 46 between the radially extending flanges 43, 44 extend back to
the inner surface of the cylindrical web 41. This fact implies that the
portions of the cylindrical web 41 from which the flanges 43, 44 extend have
a second axial thickness greater than the first axial thickness defined by the
portions of the web in the gaps 45, 46 between the radially extending
flanges.
9. In use, the radially extending flanges 43, 44 engage grooves 28
in the gears 9,10 to restrain the two gears against relative axial movement.
Cooper’s spring clip includes two holes 47 to facilitate compression of the
spring clip when the spring clip is engaged with the gears 9, 10. (See
Cooper, col. 6,11. 10—13; see also id., col. 4,11. 24^40 & 48—65).
Metall
10. Metall describes a retaining ring 11. (Metall 1,11. 85—88). The
retaining ring 11 has a split or gap 15. Two grip lugs 17,19 extend from
inner sides of the ring 77 on opposite sides of the gap 75. Each grip lug 77,
19 has a hole 27, 23. (See Metall 1,1. 85 —2,1. 9 & Fig. 3).
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Appellant argues that Cooper’s spring clip lacks at least one
retaining feature including opposing gripping surfaces “configured to clamp
a structure therebetween for movement therewith” as recited in claim 1 (see
Appeal Brief, dated May 25, 2016 (“Br.”), at 6); or “configured to directly
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
grip opposing faces of the structure for rotation therewith” as recited in
claim 25 (see Br. 9). The structures at the opposing ends of the cylindrical
web 41 are substantially identical to those of the retaining features 94
described in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Specification, and depicted in
Figure 2 of the Specification. The opposing ends of the cylindrical web 41
correspond to the first portion described in paragraph 50 of the
Specification. The second axial widths defined at the opposing ends of the
cylindrical web 41 are greater than the first axial width of the cylindrical
web in the gaps 45, 46 between the flanges 43, 44. The pairs of flanges
extending radially outwardly from the two opposing ends of the cylindrical
web 41 correspond to the second portions described in paragraph 51 of the
Specification. The pairs of radially extending flanges as depicted in Figures
7 and 8 of Cooper, together with the opposing ends of the cylindrical web
41, cooperate to define channels similar to the channels defined by the first
and second portions 104,110 of the retaining portions 94.
Based on this structural similarity, we agree with the Examiner that
the gripping surfaces defined by the inner surfaces of the radially extending
flanges 43, 44 of Cooper’s spring clip are configured to clamp a structure
therebetween for movement therewith, as well as to directly grip opposing
faces of a structure for rotation therewith. (See Examiner’s Answer, mailed
August 10, 2016 (“Ans.”), at 3 & 4). This is true despite Cooper’s teaching
to use the spring clip for a different application. The Appellant has
presented no evidence to rebut this finding. We sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5 and 25 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cooper.
In addition, the Appellant argues that claim 2 is patentable because
“Cooper does not disclose or teach a retaining feature having an axial
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
portion that extends across an outer peripheral surface of the ring body and
axially beyond the front and rear faces.” (See Br. 8). We agree with the
Examiner that the portions of the cylindrical web 41 from which the flanges
43, 44 extend have a second axial thickness greater than the first axial
thickness defined by the portions of the web in the gaps 45, 46 between the
radially extending flanges. (See Ans. 4 & 5; see also FF 8). We sustain the
rejection of claims 2 and 3 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cooper.
Second Issue
Claim 6 recites the “ring according to claim 5 wherein the assembly
feature comprises a pair of lugs extending radially inwardly toward the axis,
and wherein each lug includes an opening to receive the tool.” Cooper’s
spring clip includes openings 47 to receive a tool (see FF 9), but the
openings are not included in lugs extending radially inwardly toward the
axis of the clip. Metall describes a retaining ring having inwardly extending
lugs with openings. (See FF 10). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious “to modify the shapings of the Cooper ring, to be radially
inward directed lugs with holes, as shown and taught by Johnson Metall for
the purpose of manufacturing the ring with shapings that enable compression
and insertion of the ring into a hole.” (Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 7,
2016, at 6).
The Appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
modify the Cooper clip 22 in the manner proposed by the Examiner because
including radially inwardly extending lugs on the Cooper clip 22 would
interfere with the rotating shaft 1.” (Br. 12). In response, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning:
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2016-008431
Application 12/622,652
Again, the Cooper invention is directed to a clip, and there
is a preferred embodiment of the clip being used with a gear set.
The applicability of the clip outside the preferred embodiment is
apparently not accepted by Appellant. Once use of the clip is
divorced from the preferred embodiment, it is obvious that the
location of the holes of Cooper must remain accessible as
expressly taught in Cooper (col. 4, lines 62—63). Metall merely
evidences the well-known location of lugs on snap rings being
either radially outward or inward from the ring, which are chosen
to enable the ring to be installed for a particular purpose. Beside,
Cooper teaches splines 3 on the shaft 1, and it is not unreasonable
to have the lugs of the modified Cooper to extend radially
inward, between splines 3. This would still allow for the axial
translation of the gears 9, 10 along the shaft 1 as well as the
relative rotation of the gears 9, 10 since the flanges 23, 24 are
received in grooves 28.
(Ans. 6 & 7). We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cooper and Metall.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 25.
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).
AFFIRMED
9