Ex Parte DiBenedettoDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 201913745943 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/745,943 01/21/2013 Enzo DiBenedetto 54549 7590 05/15/2019 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. 64084US01; 67097-2142PUS1 CONFIRMATION NO. 8703 EXAMINER LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RY AN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2019 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 ENZO DIBENEDETT01 Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, 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 1-17. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we do not find error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of these claims. 1 "The real party in interest is the assignee of the entire right in this application, United Technologies Corporation." App. Br. 1. Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that, for purposes of this appeal, United Technologies Corporation is the "Appellant." Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to mounting an oil channel which collects oil from a fan drive gear in a gas turbine engine." Spec. ,-J 1. Apparatus claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a propuslor that includes a fan and a fan drive gear architecture for rotating about a central axis; said fan drive gear architecture including a number of intermediate gears connecting an output shaft of a fan drive turbine to a fan drive shaft for said fan; and an oil channel for collecting oil thrown radially outwardly of said fan drive gear architecture, a bearing support mounting bearings, said bearings supporting said fan drive shaft, said oil channel and said bearing support are fixed together by elongated connecting members, said connecting members having respective shafts extending through slots in said oil channel, and wherein a slot width is sized to closely receive said connecting member shafts and a slot length is relatively larger, whereby said connecting members may adjust in a radial direction within said slots to allow said oil channel and said bearing support to expand at different rates in the radial direction. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Chaplin et al. Udall et al. Matsuda et al. Schilling et al. Sheridan et al. Davis Ivakitch et al. us 4,247,248 US 6,494,032 B2 US 6,658,853 B2 US 7,260,892 B2 US 2010/0105516 Al US 2011/0286836 Al US 8,932,022 B2 2 Jan.27, 1981 Dec. 17, 2002 Dec. 9, 2003 Aug. 28, 2007 Apr. 29, 2010 Nov. 24, 2011 Jan. 13,2015 Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan and Matsuda. Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, and Ivakitch. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, and Schilling. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, Ivakitch, and Davis. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, Davis, and Udall. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, and Chaplin. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan, Matsuda, Ivakitch, Schilling, Davis, and Udall. ANALYSIS Appellant argues "All Claims Under 35 USC §103" and does so together. See App. Br. 3-4. Appellant also presents separate statements regarding claims 3, 4, 11, 13, and 17, but such statements are to the effect that there is no showing why the modification would be implemented or that the additional reference(s) do(es) not cure the aforementioned defect. See App. Br. 4-5. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 2-17) standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner relies primarily on Sheridan for disclosing the limitations of claim 1, but relies on Matsuda for disclosing the use of a bolt 3 Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 and slot arrangement whereby "said bolts may adjust in a radial direction to allow the components to expand at different rates." See Final Act. 3-4; see also Matsuda 2:7 ("capable of absorbing difference[s] in thermal expansion"), 2:60-61 ("each of the sealing segments is movable in a radial direction"). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify the gas turbine engine of Sheridan" to include Matsuda's "bolt/slot configuration" "for the purpose of permitting relative movement ... in the radial direction in order to reduce stress loads resulting from thermal growth." Final Act. 5. Appellant provides some background of the claimed subject matter stating that it was "desirable to form the bearing support housing and the oil channel of different materials." App. Br. 3; see also Spec. ,-J 5. However, as a consequence, Appellant states that there became a need to "accommodat[ e] ... thermal expansion" at that interface. App. Br. 3; see also Spec. ,-J 5. Appellant acknowledges Matsuda's discussion of employing "elongated slot[ s] to allow some radial adjustment" but contends that the problems Matsuda addresses "are not directed to the environment of the oil channel and bearing support" as recited. App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1 (no teaching that the combination "would have that same distinct expansion rate"). Appellant argues that Matsuda instead addresses gas turbine thermal expansion problems elsewhere involving different materials, and that "Matsuda et al. has nothing to do with [Appellant's] environment." App. Br. 4. Appellant states that this is because "Matsuda, et al, addresses problems . . . between a combustor liner formed of a ceramic material" and a metal and, "[ n Jowhere in this art is there a showing that radial expansion could be a concern at the claimed location." App. Br. 4. Hence, according to 4 Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 Appellant, the Examiner's combination of Sheridan and Matsuda "is supported solely by hindsight."2 App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1-2. We agree that neither Sheridan nor Matsuda addresses the exact interface Appellant addresses because of Appellant's present desire to construct that interface of two dissimilar materials. See Spec. ,-J 5; App. Br. 3. However, the Examiner states that it is known "that the environment within a gas turbine engine is characterized by thermal gradients" and that such thermal gradients lead "to differential changes in size." Ans. 19. Matsuda offers one solution to that known problem. See Matsuda generally; see also Ans. 20. The Examiner states that prior art (including Matsuda) "use such an attachment for substantially different gas turbine engine components" and as such, Matsuda' s solution would be applicable to resolving Appellant's problem. Ans. 19-20 ("Matsuda is both in the same field of endeavor (i.e., gas turbine engines) and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem," i.e., thermal expansion of dissimilar material). The Supreme Court has provided guidance stating, "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). Here, Appellant does not contend that employing Matsuda's bolt/slot configuration in Sheridan would tax the ability of one skilled in the art. Instead, it appears that employing Matsuda's solution at the interface created by Appellant is a 2 "The only place in this record where the problem addressed by the claimed structure is found is in Appellant's disclosure." Reply Br. 1. 5 Appeal2018-007033 Application 13/745,943 prime example of good engineering judgement, since such a solution has been shown to be effective at other interfaces. Accordingly, based on the record presented and Supreme Court guidance, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 as being obvious under § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal (see 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)) may be extended (see 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv)). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation