Ex Parte Binks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2018

13918439 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/918,439
50811 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE
06/14/2013
05/15/2018
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alan J. Binks
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1349-25685 7500
EXAMINER
BADAWI, MEDHAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2018 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN J. BINKS and ALLAN R. PENDA
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Rohr, Inc."
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellants' invention "relates generally to a turbine engine
system and, more particularly, to an assembly for mounting a turbine engine
to a pylon." Spec. ,r 1; see also id. ,r,r 32, 36, Figs. 1-2.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An assembly for mounting a turbofan engine to a pylon,
the turbofan engine comprising a fan section and an engine core,
the pylon comprising a first portion and a second portion axially
aft of the first portion, the assembly comprising:
a fan case configured to house the fan section of the
turbofan engine;
a first mount connected to the fan case, and configured to
mount and structurally tie the fan case to the first portion of the
pylon, and the first mount comprising a strut, the strut connected
to and extending axially aft from the fan case, and the strut
configured to transfer an axial thrust load between the fan case
and the first portion of the pylon; and
a second mount connected to the fan case, and configured
to mount and structurally tie the fan case to the second portion of
the pylon independent of the first mount.
14. A turbine engine system, comprising:
a turbine engine first case;
a turbine engine second case substantially coaxial with the
first case;
a vane arranged radially between the first case and the
second case;
a plurality of case-to-pylon mounts including a first
mount, a second mount and a third mount, wherein the first
mount and the second mount are each connected to the first case,
the first mount is axially forward of the second mount, and the
third mount is connected to the second case; and
2
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
a pylon including an intermediate portion axially between
a forward portion and an aft portion, wherein the first mount is
connected to the forward portion, the second mount is connected
to the intermediate portion, and the third mount is connected to
the aft portion;
the first mount comprising at least one strut extending
axially between and structurally axially tying the first case and
the forward portion of the pylon.
Rejections
I. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
II. Claims 1-5 and 8-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Roche et al. (US 2009/0266932 Al, pub. Oct. 29, 2009)
("Roche") and Schnelz (US 2013/0240666 Al, pub. Sept. 19, 2003).
III. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Roche, Schnelz, and Pasquer et al. (US 7,165,743 B2, iss.
Jan. 23, 2007) ("Pasquer").
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6,
and recites, in-part, "the strut is substantially circumferentially centered
between the links." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that claim 7 is indefinite because claim 7
requires, but the Specification and the Drawings lack disclosure of, a strut
positioned between the links. See Ans. 3--4 (annotating Spec., Fig. 8).
Using Figure 8 as an example, the Examiner finds that strut 94 is not
positioned between links 110. See id.
3
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
However, we agree with the Appellants that "the phrase
'circuniferentially centered between' describes a circumferential alignment /
orientation without requiring a longitudinal alignment / orientation as
contended by the Examiner's Answer." Reply Br. 2. Turning back to
Figure 8 as an example, we do not understand claim 7 to require strut 94 to
be positioned between links 110 longitudinally. We also agree with the
Appellants that the above-recited portion of claim 7 is clear. Id.
Further, the reason for the Examiner's rejection appears to be that the
Appellants' Drawings and Specification fail to disclose the above-recited
portion of claim 7. See Ans. 3--4 ( describing the Appellants' invention and
annotating Appellants' Figure 8). As such, it appears that the Examiner has
confused the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b ), which are separate
and distinct. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 2174,
Relationship Between the Requirements of 35 U.S.C. [§ ]112(a) and (b) or
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First and Second Paragraphs (9th ed., rev. 8, Jan.
2018) ("If a description ... of a specification is not commensurate in scope
with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not
render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with
35 U.S.C. [§ ]112(b)." (citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904 (CCPA
1970))).
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 as
indefinite.
4
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
Re} ection II
Independent Claims 1 and 13 and Dependent Claims 2-5 and 8-12
Independent claim 1 recites a "first mount comprising a strut, the strut
connected to and extending axially aft from the fan case, and the strut
configured to transfer an axial thrust load between the fan case and the first
portion of the pylon," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.). Similarly, independent claim 13 recites a "first mount
comprising a strut connected to and extending axially aft from the fan case,
and the first mount configured to transfer an axial thrust load between the
fan case and the first portion of the pylon." Id. at 17 (Claims App.).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection includes a
combination of teachings from Roche and Schnelz that fails to teach a first
mount or a strut of the first mount that is "configured to transfer an axial
thrust load between the fan case and the first portion of the pylon," as
required by independent claims 1 and 13. Id. at 10, 12.
At the outset, we note that the Examiner finds that Roche teaches a
first mount. Final Act. 4 ( citing Roche, Fig. 3). However, the Examiner
does not rely on Roche to teach a first mount or a strut of the first mount that
is "configured to transfer an axial thrust load between the fan case and the
first portion of the pylon," as required by claims 1 and 13. Id. at 5, 10.
The Examiner turns to Schnelz to remedy the deficiency of Roche
with regard to the subject matter of claims 1 and 13. Id. More specifically,
the Examiner relies on Schnelz' s frame 318 and elongate members 509,
which are part of frame 318, to correspond to the claimed strut. Id.; see
Schnelz ,r,r 83, 102-104, Fig. 10. We note that frame 318 and elongate
members 509 are part of forward mounting structure 310. Id. at ,r 73.
5
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
The Appellants contend that "Schnelz teaches its forward mounting
structure 310 is only configured to transfer side and radial loads, not axial
loads, as is clearly depicted by the force arrows 502, 504, 510 and 512 in
FIG. 5." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Schnelz ,r,r 83, 84); Reply Br. 2--4. The
Appellants' contention is persuasive.
Figure 5 of Schnelz shows an engine mounting system 222 including
pylon 226, forward mounting system 310 - which includes frame 318 and
elongate members 509 - and aft mounting system 312. Schnelz ,r,r 20, 70,
72, 83. Schnelz describes that "frame 318 may be used to carry only side
load 502 and side load 504 and not vertical load 510 and vertical load 512"
and that "elongate members 509 in frame 318 may carry side load 502 and
side load 504[,] but not vertical load 510 and vertical load 512." Id. ,r,r 83,
85 (emphasis omitted). Additionally, in Figure 5, thrust load 508 is depicted
away from forward mounting system 310, including frame 318 and elongate
members 5 09.
The engine mounting system of Figure 5 is depicted in a block
diagram in Figure 1. Id. ,r,r 16, 20. The block diagram shows a forward
mounting system 110, which carries a number of side loads 141 and vertical
loads 142. Id. ,r 53, Fig. 1. Thrust loads, however, are shown as carried by
aft mounting system 112. Id. ,r 16, Fig. 1. With regard to Figure 5, aft
mounting system 112 is represented by aft mounting system 312. Id. ,r 16,
Fig. 5; see Appeal Br. 10.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Schnelz teaches that forward
mounting structure 310 may carry and transfer other loads. Ans. 6 ( citing
Schnelz ,r 84 ). In this regard, Schnelz describes "[ o ]f course, other loads
may be present that may be carried and transferred by forward mounting
6
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
system 310, aft mounting system 312, or a combination of the two."
Schnelz ,r 84 ( emphasis omitted). As such, the Examiner's finding appears
to be based on a general statement concerning Schnelz's mounting system;
one that pertains to both the forward mounting system and the aft mounting
system.
However, Schnelz does not disclose that its forward mounting
structure ( e.g., 110, 310) may carry a thrust load, or more importantly, that
frame 318 or elongate members 509 may carry a thrust load. Additionally,
the Examiner fails to explain, using technical reasoning, how Schnelz's
frame 318 or elongate members 509 may carry a thrust load. As discussed
above, Schnelz's disclosure only supports a finding that its aft mounting
system ( e.g., 112, 312) carries thrust loads. Based on the foregoing, we fail
to understand how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Schnelz
to teach that frame 318 or elongate members 509 are configured to transfer
an axial thrust load between the fan case and the first portion of the pylon.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2-5 and 8-12, as unpatentable over
Roche and Schnelz.
Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claims 15-19
The Appellants rely on the same arguments for independent claim 14
as those provided for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Independent
claim 14, unlike claims 1 and 13, does not require a first mount or a strut of
the first mount that is configured to transfer an axial thrust load between the
fan case and the first portion of the pylon. See id. at 17 (Claims App.). As
such, this argument is not persuasive for the rejection of independent
7
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
claim 14. The relevant portion of claim 14 recites a "first mount comprising
at least one strut extending axially between and structurally axially tying the
first case and the forward portion of the pylon." Id. (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Schnelz teaches this recitation of claim 14. See Final
Act. 5, 10. We determine that the Examiner's finding is adequately
supported.
The Appellants argue that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would
[not] have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying, or motivation
to modify, the teachings of Roche to include the teachings of Schnelz as
alleged in the Office Action." Appeal Br. 10. The Appellants support this
argument by alleging that the teachings of Roche and Schnelz are not
properly combinable because Schnelz' s "forward mounting system 310 is
specifically designed to reduce distance between the engine and wing,"
which has no applicability to, criticizes, and teaches away from the forward
structure of Roche's engine mounting system, which "require[s] a relatively
large distance between the engine and wing." Id. at 9--10 (citing Schnelz
,r,r 33-35). The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
The Appellants fail to establish how the modification of Roche's first
mount with the specific teaching of Schnelz relied upon by the Examiner
changes the distance between Roche's engine and wing. First, the Examiner
relies on Schnelz' s teaching of frame 318 and elongate members 509 to
modify Roche's first mount. Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not modify
Roche's first mount with the entirety of Schnelz's forward mounting system.
See id. As such, we fail to understand how this modification changes the
distance between Roche's engine and wing. Second, as discussed above,
Schnelz's frame 318 and elongate members 509 may carry side loads 502,
8
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
504. Schnelz ,r 83, Fig. 5. And, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roche's
engine mounting system in view of Schnelz's teachings in order to carry side
loads. See Final Act. 5. We determine that the Examiner's rejection
includes adequate reasoning with rational underpinning. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
... [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.") ( cited with approval in KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14 as
unpatentable over Roche and Schnelz. Further, the Appellants provide a
separate heading, but not a separate argument for claims 15-19, which
depend from independent claim 14. Appeal Br. 13, 18 (Claims App.). For
the same reasons we have sustained the rejection of claim 14, we likewise
sustain the rejection of claims 15-19.
Rejection III
The remaining rejection of claims 6 and 7, which depend from
claim 1, based on Roche and Schnelz in combination with Pasquer relies on
the same erroneous finding discussed above with respect to claim 1. See
Final Act. 11-12. The remaining rejection is not cured by additional
findings and/ or reasoning associated therewith. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Roche, Schnelz,
and Pasquer.
9
Appeal2017-008177
Application 13/918,439
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roche and Schnelz.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting: claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite; claims 1-5 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Roche and Schnelz; and claims 6 and 7 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roche, Schnelz, and Pasquer.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10