Ex Parte Bunting et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

14200649 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/200,649 03/07/2014 Billie W. Bunting
54549 7590 05/22/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
57489US02;
67097-2174PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
3340
EXAMINER
HERRING, BRENT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BILLIE W. BUNTING, ROBERT J. DEROSA,
CRAIG MICHAEL CALLAGHAN, MARK W. COLEBROOK, and
RANGANATHSANTOSH
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to fluid connection fittings. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A fluid connection fitting comprising:
a first portion including external threads; and
a second portion receiving the first portion and including
internal threads for mating to the external threads, the internal
threads include lead threads defining a first thread interface
with the external threads for starting attachment of the first
portion to the second portion and locking threads defining a
second thread interface for locking the first portion to the
second portion.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Rowley
Klementich
Ress
Drenth
us 5,028,191
us 5,462,315
US 2005/0253379 Al
US 2012/0273233 Al
July 2, 1991
Oct. 31, 1995
Nov. 17, 2005
Nov. 1, 2012
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ress and Rowley.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ress and Drenth.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ress, Rowley, and Drenth.
4. Claims 1, 3-9, 13-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ress and Klementich.
2
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, and 17
over Ress and Rowley
Claims 1, 9, and 16
The Examiner finds that Ress discloses the invention, substantially as
claimed, except for defining first and second thread interfaces and, in
particular, locking threads defining the second thread interface. Final
Action 4. The Examiner relies on Rowley as disclosing a self-locking
threaded member with first and second thread interfaces and locking threads
defining a second thread interface. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to use Rowley's self-locking threads with Ress. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to provide self-locking capability, high temperature locking, and
relative simplicity. Id.
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing, essentially, that the
thermal fit of Ress and the interference fit of Rowley are so different in their
approach to joining pieces of a fitting, that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have modified Ress by Rowley. Appeal Br. 4--5. In addition,
Appellants argue that Rowley does not disclose two distinct thread interfaces
as claimed. Id. Appellants also point out that Rowley's aperture and pin
arrangement is disposed on external threads, not internal threads. Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the positon that incorporating an
interference fit, as taught by Rowley, would not interfere with the thermal fit
in Ress, but instead would enhance the connection. Ans. 8. The Examiner
further suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would substitute
Rowley's interference fit for the thermal/shrink fit of Ress. Id. In response
3
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
to Appellants' argument that Rowley does not disclose two distinct thread
interfaces, the Examiner states that Rowley discloses an embodiment where
the aperture does not run the full length of the connector. Id. at 10.
According to the Examiner, the thread portion that includes the aperture
corresponds to a first thread interface and the portion without the aperture is
a second thread interface. Id.
Ress is directed to a threaded joint for gas turbine components.
Ress i-f 1. The principle embodiment disclosed in Ress connects diffuser/
combustor housing 16 with turbine housing 18. Id. i-f 20, Fig. 2. Turbine
housing 18 has external threads. Id. i-f 21. Diffuser housing 16 has internal
threads that engage the external threads of housing 18. Id. When the
threads are tightened, an axial force is generated that drives end 48 of
housing 16 into shoulder 46 of housing 18 into an abutting relationship that
forms a seal. Id. The joint also features radial pilots 100 and 101 formed on
either side of the joint. Id. i-f 22. Notably,
[t ]he parameters of the pilot joints, length to the axial abutting
surfaces, and thread size are all selected to facilitate
assembly/disassembly during a condition where the housings 16
and 18 are subjected to differential thermal conditions.
Id. i-f 23. In the assembly/disassembly phase, housing 16 is subjected to
higher localized thermal loading than housing 18. Id. i-f 24. The two
housings are threaded together in the state of differential thermal loading
until shoulder 46 and end face 48 abut one another. Id. i-f 25. The threads
are then tightened to create a predetermined loading on end faces 46, 48. Id.
The assembly is then cooled to achieve equal thermal loading on the two
components, which has the practical effect of tightening the joint and
enhancing the seal. Id.
4
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
Rowley discloses a self-locking threaded member. Rowley, Abstract.
Rowley features an aperture disposed longitudinally along the threads. Id.
The aperture receives a "locking member" or pin that extends axially along
the fastener. Id. The locking member operates as a wedge to cause an
increase in friction between the mating threads. Id.
After considering the competing positions of Appellants and the
Examiner, we think that the Appellants have stated the better position. Ress
relies on principles of thermal expansion and contraction to form a tight joint
and seal. In our opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been inclined to interpose a pin, as taught by Rowley, to operate as a wedge
between the joint components of Ress, as the volumetric space taken up by
the pin would tend to interfere with the sealing properties of the joint. In
that regard, we consider the Examiner's stated reasoning for making the
combination, i.e., to provide high-temperature locking and simplicity, as
conclusory and lacking in persuasive technical analysis given the substantial
differences between the individual prior art references.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 over Ress and Rowley.
Claims 2, 10, and 17
Claims 2, 10, and 17 depend from claims 1, 9, and 16 respectively.
Claims App. The rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity
that we have identified above with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons
articulated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, we do not sustain the
unpatentability rejection of claims 2, 10, and 17 over Ress and Rowley.
5
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 16, and 18
over Ress and Drenth
Claims 1, 9, and 16
The Examiner relies on Ress for essentially the same facts as used in
the grounds of rejection over Ress and Rowley discussed above. Final
Action 5. The Examiner relies on Drenth as disclosing a self-locking
threaded member as claimed. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Ress by the teachings of Drenth to achieve
the claimed invention. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have done this to provide a seal the does not jam or cross-
thread. Id.
Appellants argue that Drenth does not disclose first and second thread
sections as claimed. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants further argue that Drenth
uses tapered threads, a feature that is incompatible with Ress. Id. Finally,
Appellants characterize the Examiner's reasoning for making the
combination "conclusory." Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that the claim limitation
directed to a "second thread section" imparts "no structure." Ans. 11.
An arbitrary portion of the threads is read on by "second thread
section". A cylindrical post with a top end and a bottom end
could further be said to have a "top section" and a "bottom
section".
Id. The Examiner finds that Drenth discloses thread sections where the top
portion is wider than the bottom portion, thereby providing for locking as the
threads engage. Id. The Examiner further finds that the tapering of Drenth
would not compromise the axial spacing of Ress and could actually enhance
6
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
the seal by providing additional sealing within the threaded portion
independent of the seal structure of Ress. Id.
Claim 1 recites: ( 1) lead threads "for starting attachment;" and (2)
locking threads "for locking." Claims App. The Figure 2A embodiment of
Appellants' invention discloses a first set of standard fit threads (element 40)
and a second set of interference fit threads (element 42) that are spaced apart
and separated by a relief section (element 44). In view of this disclosure, the
Examiner errs in construing the claimed "second thread ... portion" as
imparting "no structure." See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (a construction that does not reasonably reflect
the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster).
Drenth is directed to drill string components with threading features
that resist jamming. Drenth, Abstract. Having reviewed the portions of
Drenth relied on by the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that Drenth
lacks two distinct thread interfaces including a first interface for starting
attachment and a second interface with locking threads. Furthermore, we
find the Examiner's reasoning and analysis deficient as to how and why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the
manner asserted by the Examiner. Ress engages threading while housing 16
is in a thermally expanded state and until a pressurized seal is effected
between abutting elements 46 and 28, after which the thermal loading is
equalized. Ress i-fi-1 21-25, Fig. 3. The Examiner provides little or no
technical reasoning to explain how the interference fit teachings of Drenth
would facilitate joining housings 16 and 18 of Ress without compromising
the abutment seal at elements 46 and 48.
7
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
The Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Ress and Drenth
discloses or suggests all of the elements of claim 1 and further errs in
concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to achieve the claimed invention by following the combined
teaching of the two references. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 over Ress and
Drenth.
Claims 3, 4, and 18
Claims 3 and 4 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and
claim 18 depends from claim 17. Claims App. The rejection of these claims
suffers from the same infirmity that we have identified above with respect to
claim 1. For the same reasons articulated above with respect to claims 1, 9,
and 16, we do not sustain the unpatentability rejection of claims 3, 4, and 18
over Ress and Drenth.
Unpatentability of Claims 11 and 12
over Ress, Rowley, and Drenth
Claims 11 and 12 depend indirectly from claim 9. Claims App. In
traversing the rejection of these claims, Appellants rely on the arguments
that we have previously considered with respect to the rejections of claim 9
over Ress and Rowley and over Ress and Drenth. Appeal Br. 7-9.
Appellants also recite the limitations added by each of these claims and
allege, without analysis, the neither Ress, Rowley, nor Drenth disclose these
additional limitations. Id.
In our opinion, the rejection of these claims suffers from the same
infirmities that we have previously discussed over the grounds of rejection
of claim 9 over Ress and Rowley and over Ress and Drench. Accordingly,
8
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
we do not sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 11
and 12 over Ress, Rowley, and Drenth.
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3-9, 13-16, 18, and 19
over Ress and Klementich
Claims 1, 9, and 16
The Examiner relies on Klementich as disclosing the two threaded
interface elements of claim 1, acknowledged as missing from Ress. Final
Action 7. In particular, the Examiner identifies threads 122 as defining a
first thread interface and threads 126 as defining a second thread interface as
claimed. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Ress by the teachings of Klementich to achieve the claimed
invention. Final Action 7. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have done this to provide stability and improved
efficiency. Id.
Appellants argue, in essence, that Klementich is incompatible with
Ress such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified
Ress with Klementich to achieve the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 8
("Modification to include tapered threads would completely change how the
Ress structure is intended to operate as the entire interface would be
changed").
In responding to Appellants' Appeal Brief, the Examiner merely
combines the responses to the Klementich grounds to the responses provided
in connection with the Drench grounds. See Ans. 9
Klementich is directed to a tubular connection with a center-shoulder
seal. Klementich, Abstract. Klementich features a center shoulder seal 104
9
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
located approximately at the longitudinal mid-point of the connection. Id.
col. 15, 11. 20-22.
The external thread structure of the pin member 102 extends
from its pin nose or leading terminal end 105 to a location 109
adjacent first center shoulder configuration 119 and then
continues on the other side 111 of first center shoulder
configuration 119 to the end of the external threads at the
trailing terminal end 113 of connection 100. The
complementary internal thread structure of the box member 106
extends from the box leading terminal end 115 to a location 11 7
adjacent second center shoulder configuration 108 and then
continues at the other side 121 of second center shoulder
configuration 108 to the end of the internal threads at trailing
terminal end 123 of connection 100.
Id. col. 15, 11. 23-35. Each of the box and pin members of Klementich has
run-out threads and lead-in threads disposed on opposite sides of shoulder
seal 104. Id. Figs. lA---C. The primary difference between pin member 102
and box member 106 is that, pin member 102 disposes its lead-in threads on
the left side of shoulder seal 104 and its run-out threads on the right side of
the shoulder seal, whereas this respective disposition is reversed on box
member 106. Id. Thus, when the pin and box members are joined together,
the first and second thread interfaces disposed on the respective left and
right sides of the shoulder seal are substantially the same. Id. Thus, the
Examiner errs in finding that Klementich disposes a first thread interface for
starting attachment and a second thread interface for locking as recited in the
claim 1. Final Action 7.
Furthermore, it is not clear to us what teaching the Examiner is
extracting from Klementich in order to modify Ress to achieve the claimed
invention. It appears to us that Klementich's shoulder seal 104, which is at
the mid-point of the threads, is fundamentally incompatible with the
10
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
teachings of Ress directed to abutting surfaces 46 and 48 at one extreme end
of the threads, particularly taking into account the fact that Ress teaches
generating a certain bearing stress at abutting surfaces 46, 48 in connection
with thermal loading and shrink fitting housing 16 onto housing 18. Ress,
Fig. 3, i-fi-121-25. An examiner "cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick
and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the
claimed invention." In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see
also Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (when prior art references require selective combination to render
obvious a subsequent invention, there must be some reason for the
combination other than the hindsight gleaned from the invention itself).
Here, the Examiner's stated reason for combining the references is
abbreviated and conclusory, which reinforces our impression that the
Examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight. See Final Action 7.
Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have achieved the claimed invention by
combining the teachings of Ress and Klementich. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 over
Ress and Klementich.
Claims 3--8, 13-15, 18, and 19
These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 9, or 16.
Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from the
same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16.
Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 3-8, 13-15, 18, and 19 over Ress and Klementich.
11
Appeal2017-006287
Application 14/200,649
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19 is REVERSED. 2
REVERSED
2 The Examiner also objects to Appellants' drawings. Final Action 2.
Appellants disagree with the objection, but indicate that they will subject
revised drawings if the objections are "upheld." Appeal Br. 3. We will not
review the Examiner's objection to the drawings as this issue is reviewable
by petition under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181 and not within the jurisdiction of the
Board. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BP AI 2010).
12