Ex Parte Coffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

11938963 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111938,963 11113/2007 James B. Coffin
54549 7590 10/18/2016
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
67097-948; PA-0004955-U 5067
EXAMINER
YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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 JAMES B. COFFIN and KEVIN G. VANDUYN
Appeal 2015-000123 1,2
Application 11/938,963
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," Nov. 13,
2007), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 3, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 11, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Oct. 3, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed July 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000123
Application 11/938,963
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to a method and
apparatus for supporting and retaining a fan shaft in a gas turbine engine."
Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are the only independent claims. See
Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as representative of
the appealed claims.
Id.
1. A retention system for a fan comprising:
a bearing support structure;
a shaft rotatable relative to said bearing support structure
about an axis;
a fore bearing rotatably supporting said shaft;
an aft bearing rotatably supporting said shaft, said aft
bearing being axially spaced from said fore bearing along said
axis; and
a machined spring reacting between said bearing support
structure and said fore bearing to set a desired axial preload.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 12, 16, 19, 20, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Duyn (US 6,082,959, iss. July 4, 2000)
and Morimoto (US 4, 116,506, iss. Sept. 26, 1978);
II. claims 1--4, 6-8, 13, 17, 21-23, 25, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Duyn, Morimoto, and
Campbell (US 2,801,881, iss. Aug. 6, 1957);
III. claims 5, 9, 10, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Duyn, Morimoto, Campbell, and
Drussel (US 7,014,026 B2, iss. Mar. 21, 2006);
2
Appeal2015-000123
Application 11/938,963
IV. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Van Duyn, Morimoto, Campbell, Drussel, and Allard
(US 6,464,401 Bl, iss. Oct. 15, 2002);
V. claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Van Duyn, Morimoto, Campbell, and Allard;
VI. claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Van Duyn, Morimoto, and Allard; and
VII. claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Van Duyn, Morimoto, Campbell, Drussel, and Annen
(US 6,349,683 Bl, iss. Feb. 26, 2002).
See Final Action 6-16; see Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner rejects independent claims 12 and 16, as well as
claims 19, 20, 26, and 27 depending from the independent claims, based on a
combination of Van Duyn and Morimoto. See, e.g., Final Action 6-8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 8-12; see also, e.g., Reply Br. 2-7. Based
on our review of the record, including Appellants' remarks, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, we agree with Appellants. See, e.g.,
Final Action 6-16; see also, e.g., Answer 2-14.
Van Duyn describes an arrangement for a gas turbine engine. See
Van Duyn, Abstract. Morimoto describes a "grinding wheel spindle head
for an internal grinder." Morimoto 1, 11. 10-16. The Examiner proposes "to
modify the gas turbine engine of Van Duyn by utilizing a bearing assembly
3
Appeal2015-000123
Application 11/938,963
such as the one taught by ivforimoto." Final Action 7. We agree with
Appellants, however, that "[t]he[] [references'] bearing configurations are
used in different applications (Van Duyn = gas turbine engine; Moritomo =
grinder) and have rotating shafts that experience vastly different loading
conditions." Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. We also agree with
Appellants that "Figure 5 of Van Duyn discloses a two bearing arrangement;
however, Figure 1 of Moritomo clearly discloses a configuration that utilizes
four bearings." Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. In view of these
differences between the references that the Examiner proposes combining,
and the lack of a compelling reason for combining the references, it appears
that the claimed invention could only be arrived at by hindsight
reconstruction. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 12, 16, 19, 20, 26, and 27.
Rejection II
With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and
its dependent claims, claims 2--4, 6-8, 22, 23, 25, and 30, claim 1 is rejected
for similar reasons as claims 12 and 16. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not
establish that the deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 12 and 16
is remedied by Campbell, we do not sustain the rejection for reasons similar
to those discussed above.
Claims 13, 17, 21, and 29 depend from independent claims 12 and 16.
Because we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of the independent
claims, and the Examiner does not establish that the deficiency in the
rejection of independent claims 12 and 16 is remedied by Campbell, we also
do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims.
4
Appeal2015-000123
Application 11/938,963
Rejections III-VII
These rejections each include only claims depending from one of
independent claims 1, 12, and 16, and we do not sustain the rejection of any
independent claim for the reasons given above. Inasmuch as the Examiner
does not establish that the deficiency in the rejections of independent claims
1, 12, and 16 is remedied by any other reference, we also do not sustain any
of the rejections of the dependent claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-10
and 12-31.
REVERSED
5