Ex Parte Biser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13669212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/669,212 11105/2012
130674 7590 03/22/2018
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Biser
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.
0021-00063 5702
EXAMINER
SANDERSON, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
lightfootalfordpllc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH BISER, CLIFTON B. DAY,
FRANK B. ST AMPS, and DANIEL SPIVEY1
Appeal2017-003131
Application 13/669,212
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, 21, and 22. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
2 Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are cancelled, and claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
Final Act. 1; Response to Final Office Action (Sept. 21, 2015).
Appeal2017-003131
Application 13/669,212
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
l, A rotorcratl~ comprising:
a body;
a power train coupled to the body and comprising a
power source and a drive shaft coupled to the power source;
a hub coupled to the drive shaft;
a rotor blade coupled to the hub;
a swashp1ate positioned about the drive shaft; and
a pitch link coupled between the swashplate and the hub
corresponding to the rotor blade, the pitch link comprising:
a 1 ink assembly having an overall adjustable
length, the link assembly comprising a first link, a second
link coup led to a first end of the first link and a third link
coupled to a second end of the first link opposite the first
end;
a first bearing housing having a first bearing~ the
first bearing housing removab1y coupled to the second
link, the second link separating the first bearing housing
from the first link and
a second bearing housing having a second bearing,
the second bearing: housing: removablv coupled to the
(.:.; (.:.; .,/
third link, the third link separating the second bearing
housing from the first link
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Anderson
Podgurski
US 7,207,854 Bl
US 2007/0166162 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Apr. 24, 2007
July 19, 2007
I. Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Anderson. Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2017-003131
Application 13/669,212
II. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 21, 3 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Podgurski and Anderson. Id. at 4---6.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 8-11 as a group. Br. 3-5. We select claim 8
as the representative claim, and claims 9-11 stand or fall therewith.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 8, including, inter alia, first and second bearing housings
51, 52 removably coupled to second and third links 32, 40. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner explains that elements 51, 52 of Anderson "are removably
connected to the ends of the links 32 and 40 (as seen in Fig[.] 6) via pins
(unnumbered)" and that "[a] bearing, in its simplest form, is simply a surface
against which a rotating member rotates." Ans. 2-3. According to the
Examiner, "[t]he pins ... are the 'bearings' (plain bearing-type) that are
'housed' within the 'bearing housings' 51and52, as seen in Figs[.] 2 and 6."
Id. at 3.
Appellant does not provide any evidence or argument as to why the
Examiner's specific findings in the Final Office Action and Answer
regarding elements 51, 52 of Anderson are in error. Appellant instead
presents arguments as to why "the eyelet feature shown on second rod end
32 in Figure 6" cannot satisfy the requirements of the claimed bearing
3 Even though the Examiner failed to include reference to claim 21 in the
heading for this rejection (see Final Act. 4), the Examiner makes reference
to this claim within the body of the rejection (see id. at 6). We consider the
Examiner's oversight in the heading to be a typographical error, and
therefore, we list claim 21 as being subject to this ground of rejection.
3
Appeal2017-003131
Application 13/669,212
housing. Br. 4--5. These arguments are not persuasive because they do not
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, in which the Examiner
relies on elements 51, 52 of Anderson, not the eyelet feature shown on
second rod end 3 2.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
finding that Anderson discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 8.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, and of claims 9-11 falling
therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Anderson.
Rejection II
Appellant argues claims 1-5, 8-12, 21, and 22 as a group. Br. 5-7.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-5, 8-12, 21, and
22 stand or fall therewith.
The Examiner relies on Podgurski for many of the limitations of
independent claim 8, but acknowledges that Podgurski "does not specifically
disclose the [control] linkage [for pitch] having three links coupled to each
other and two removable bearing housings." Final Act. 4. The Examiner
turns to the same teachings of Anderson, discussed supra in connection with
Rejection I, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Podgurski to use Anderson's linkage "as this is a functionally equivalent
means for producing an adjustable length control linkage for actuating
adjustable components." Id.; see also Ans. 4 ("Anderson ... teaches the
bearing housings for Podgurski.").
Appellant again presents arguments as to why Anderson's eyelet
feature cannot be the claimed bearing. Br. 6. Appellant also argues that
Podgurski fails to teach first and second bearing housings as claimed. Id. at
6-7. These arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the
4
Appeal2017-003131
Application 13/669,212
rejection as articulated by the Examiner, in which the Examiner relies on
elements 51, 52 of Anderson, not the eyelet feature shown on second rod end
32 of Anderson or any particular element of Podgurski, for the claimed
bearings. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Podgurski and Anderson render obvious the subject matter
of claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-
5, 8-12, 21, and 22 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Podgurski and Anderson.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Anderson is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-12, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Podgurski and Anderson is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5