Ex Parte Cloft

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2014

12016234 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/016,234 01/18/2008 Thomas G. Cloft 67,097-971;
PA-0004190-U
3874
54549 7590 06/09/2014
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SANDERSON, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte THOMAS G. CLOFT
________________

Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8 and 12–20. App. Br. 2. Claims
9–11 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter. Ans. 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a mounting arrangement for a
gas turbine engine and, more particularly, to a mounting arrangement that
includes front and rear engine mount beams that are integrally formed with
respective pylon mount structures.” Spec. para. 1. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A mounting arrangement for a gas turbine engine
comprising:
a pylon mount structure having a first mount portion and
a second mount portion positioned aft of said first mount
portion, said first and said second mount portions comprising
separate components to be independently attached to a pylon;
a first engine mount beam integrally formed with said
first mount portion as a single-piece component, said first
engine mount beam being attachable to an engine case structure
at a fore attachment interface; and
a second engine mount beam integrally formed with said
second mount portion as a single-piece component, said second
engine mount beam being attachable to the engine case
structure at an aft attachment interface.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Seaquist US 6,126,110 Oct. 3, 2000
Roszak US 6,601,796 B2 Aug. 5, 2003
Marche US 2005/0194493 A1 Sep. 8, 2005

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marche and Seaquist. Ans. 5.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marche, Seaquist, and Roszak. Ans. 8.

Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

3
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15–20
as being unpatentable over Marche and Seaquist
Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 15 together (App. Br. 5–7);
claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 together (App. Br. 7–8); and, Appellant also
separately argues claims 7, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 (App. Br. 8–10). We select
independent apparatus claims 1 and 2 for separate review and we also
address claims 7, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011).
Claim 1
The Examiner primarily relies on Marche for disclosing the
limitations of claim 1 including the identification of Marche’s item 4 as the
claimed “pylon,” items 14/16 as the claimed “first mount portion,” and item
18 as the claimed “second mount portion.” Ans. 5, 9; see also Ans. 12. The
Examiner relies on Seaquist for teaching “that engine mount beam
components may be constructed as a single piece or as multiple pieces (col
4, lines 14–20).” Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to have modified Marche to use single-piece mount beams as
taught by Seaquist as these are art-recognized functionally equivalent
methods for forming engine mount components in a predictable manner.”
Ans. 5; see also Ans. 9. The Examiner also references Howard v. Detroit
Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893) for holding “that forming in one piece an
article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together
involves only routine skill in the art.” Ans. 5.
Appellant contends that because Marche’s “element 14 is already part
of the rigid structure 4” (i.e., Marche’s corresponding pylon), “it is not clear
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

4
how element 14 is independently attachable to a pylon as claimed.” App.
Br. 5–6. To be clear, Marche discloses that “rigid structure 4 is globally
made by the assembly of lower stringers 12 and upper stringers 10
connected to each other.” Marche para. 76. This same paragraph also
discloses that “a forward part of this rigid structure 4 is composed of a
pyramid 14.” Marche para. 76. Hence, Appellants’ argument is understood
that as item 14 is already part of item 4, then it is not clear how this item 14
can also be independently attached to item 4. The Examiner clarifies “that
integration (combining multiple into one) is a form of ‘attachment.’ The
claims do not specify the type of attachment to be obtained.” Ans. 9. The
Examiner further finds that as Marche’s corresponding first and second
portions 14/16 and 18, “are distinct components joined to the pylon at
separate locations (fore and aft of pylon 4),” that “they are ‘separate
components’ to be ‘independently’ attached from each other (i.e., one’s
joining does not depend on the other) to the pylon.” Ans. 9. Appellant
disagrees, contending that “[p]yramid 14 is the pylon itself” and references
Marche paragraph [0076] for support (Reply Br. 2), but as stated above, this
paragraph only states that pyramid 14 is a “forward part” of “rigid structure
4” which itself is described as being an “assembly” made from different
stringers 10 and 12 that are “connected to each other.” Hence, there is no
indication in Marche that the construction of rigid structure/pylon 4 is
monolithic but instead, Marche describes item 4 as an assembly of multiple
components connected together. Marche para. 76. Consequently,
Appellant’s contention that Marche’s item 14 is not “independently
attachable to a pylon as claimed” is not persuasive. App. Br. 6.
Furthermore, Appellant’s contention that Marche’s first and second mount
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

5
portions, i.e., 14/16 and 18, are not “separate components” as claimed is
likewise not persuasive. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant also contends that “[t]here is nothing in Seaquist to suggest
that the yokes can be integrally formed with other structures” and further
that there is no teaching in Seaquist of integrally forming the structures “at
fore and aft attachment interfaces as claimed.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply
Br. 3. In making these contentions, Appellant is arguing Seaquist separate
from the teachings of Marche; and it is Marche the Examiner relies upon for
disclosing the various structures involved, but not their being “formed as
single-piece components” as is taught by Seaquist. Ans. 5. We thus agree
with the Examiner that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” Ans. 9. Furthermore, Appellant does not dispute that Seaquist
teaches construction “from a single piece of material” as well as construction
“from more than one piece of material.” App. Br. 6, referencing Seaquist
4:14–20; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner clearly relies on Seaquist for
disclosing such “art-recognized functionally equivalent methods” of
construction (Ans. 5, 9), not the location or “arrangement” of “attachment
interfaces” as Appellant contends (App. Br. 6, 7; see also Reply Br. 3).
Accordingly, Appellants’ contentions concerning the location of Seaquist’s
components are not persuasive.
In view of the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 15.
Claim 2
Appellant initially relies on the allowability of claim 2 “for the same
reasons claim[] 1 is allowable.” App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4. This
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

6
reliance by Appellant is not persuasive for the reasons set forth supra.
Appellant also contends that Marche fails to disclose the specifically recited
structure disclosed in claim 2. App. Br. 7–8. Claim 2 recites “a first mount
portion” that comprises “a pyramid structure having a convergent portion
with a divergent portion extending outwardly away from said convergent
portion, said divergent portion to be attached to the pylon.” Claims App’x.
3, App. Br. 7. Again, Appellant contends that “it is not clear how the
divergent portion of [Marche’s] portion 14 is independently attached to a
pylon as claimed.” App. Br. 7. This argument by Appellant was previously
addressed supra and found wanting. See also Ans. 6. The Examiner also
identifies Marche paragraph [0076] where item 14 is described as a
“pyramid” which is illustrated in Marche figure 1 as having both a
“convergent portion” and a “divergent portion” and wherein the “divergent
portion” is “attached to the pylon” 4 as claimed. Hence, Appellants’
contention that “it is not clear,” is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant further reiterates the contention that “[t]he pyramid
structure in Marche is the pylon itself.” Reply Br. 4. This contention is not
persuasive for the reasons previously stated.
Appellant also repeats the contention regarding Seaquist’s teaching of
a mounting location (App. Br. 7) when the Examiner did not rely on
Seaquist for any such location disclosure (see Ans. 5). In summary,
Appellants’ contention that neither Marche or Seaquist “suggest that a fore
engine mount beam [see Marche 14/16] be integrally formed [see Seaquist]
with a convergent portion of a pyramid structure [see Marche figure 1]
where a divergent portion of the pyramid structure [see Marche figure 1] is
to be attached to a pylon [see Marche item 4]” is not persuasive of Examiner
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

7
error. App. Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 4–5. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
that said second engine mount beam “includes attachment structure to
pivotally support a linkage assembly.” The Examiner deems this limitation
to pertain to an intended use of the claimed invention. Ans. 11. The
Examiner further finds that “Marche discloses pin fittings in the mount at
18” and that Marche’s structure “is capable of pivotally supporting a linkage
assembly” as claimed. Id. at 11; see also Id. at 7. Appellant reiterates
Marche’s disclosure that aft mount 18 “resists forces along the Y and Z
directions and resists the moment applied about the X direction.” App. Br.
8; Reply Br. 5 both referencing Marche para. 80. Marche is silent regarding
any teaching of a pivotal support and we have recently been instructed that
indicating that a prior device could perform as claimed without also
indicating “whether it was obvious to modify” the prior device to do so, is
indicative that the Examiner has not “met his initial burden of establishing a
case of prima facie obviousness.” In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the Examiner identifies “pins” that “may be fitted
with attachments to linkages instead” (Ans. 7; see also Ans. 11) but provides
no basis as to why it might be obvious to modify Marche in the manner
suggested. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection claim 7.

Claims 16-20
For each of these dependent claims, Appellant relies on the
allowability of their respective parent claim. App. Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 5–6.
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

8
Appellant also repeats previous arguments to the effect that (a) Seaquist
refers to a different engine support arrangement/location; (b) Marche’s
components 14 and 18 are not “separate from each other,” and (c) “it is not
clear” how items 14 and 18 “comprise discrete components to be
independently attached to a pylon.” App. Br. 8–9. These contentions have
previously been addressed and found wanting. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 16–20.

The rejection of claims 6 and 14
as being unpatentable over Marche, Seaquist, and Roszak
Appellant argues dependent claims 6 and 14 together. App. Br. 10.
We select claim 6 for review with claim 14 standing or falling with claim 6.
Claim 6 includes the additional limitation of an attachment structure
that “includes at least one pivot mount.” The Examiner relies on Marche
and Seaquist as indicated supra and further relies on the additional reference
to Roszak as disclosing “an engine mount [] having a pivot attachment to the
engine case (via swivel hinge pins 26a and 26c).” Ans. 8. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify “Marche to use pivot
attachments as taught by Roszak for the predictable advantage of
accommodating loads in flight by allowing relative movement.” Id.
Appellant contends that “Marche teaches away from a pivot
attachment” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6–7) but Appellant does not indicate
where Marche actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
investigation into the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant also contends that Roszak “is not capable
of achieving” the requirements set forth in Marche regarding resisting forces
along the X, Y, and Z directions. Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner is
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

9
not applying Roszak to achieve the same results as taught by Marche, but
instead is applying Roszak so as to take “advantage of accommodating loads
in flight by allowing relative movement.” Ans. 8. The Examiner further
finds that Roszak teaches a pivotal attachment “‘fixed’ (attached)” “to resist
lateral and vertical forces,” the same as taught by Marche and hence,
“Roszak teaches an engine mount to perform the force resistance disclosed
by Marche.” Id. at 13. In summary, the Examiner finds that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill would thus look to Roszak as a known means to resist loads in
the X and Y direction as desired by Marche.” Id. Appellant’s contentions to
the contrary (e.g., Reply Br. 7) are not persuasive and furthermore,
Appellant does not indicate how the Examiner’s findings, as well as the
Examiner’s stated reason to combine, lack articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would render “the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” as well
as “change the principle of operation of a reference.” Reply Br. 7.
However, the stated principle of operation of Marche, Seaquist and Roszak
is to securely mount an engine to a wing of an aircraft. See Marche Title,
Seaquist Title, and Roszak 1:8–10. Hence, Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner’s suggested combination would be unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose or otherwise change a principle of operation is not persuasive as
Appellant does not indicate how the suggested combination would fail at
mounting an engine to a wing of an aircraft.
In view of the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 6 and 14.
Appeal 2012-005061
Application 12/016,234

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6, 8 and 12–20 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rvb