Ex Parte Farah et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 201814598574 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/598,574 01/16/2015 Jorge I. Farah 54549 7590 11/23/2018 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. 67097-3125PUS1; 79545US01 CONFIRMATION NO. 6213 EXAMINER EDWARDS, LORENC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2018 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 JORGE I. FARAH, STEVEN D. PORTER, PAULK. SANCHEZ, and JOSEPH J. SEDOR Appeal2018-005179 Application 14/598,57 4 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-005179 Application 14/598,574 According to Appellants, the invention "relates ... to a mid-turbine frame (MTF) included in a gas turbine engine." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A mid-turbine frame for a gas turbine engme compnsmg: an inner frame case including a bolt opening; at least one spoke for connecting an outer frame case to the inner frame case including an inlet passage extending in a radial direction, wherein a radially inner end of the at least one spoke includes at least two tabs; and a central bolt extending through the bolt opening for securing the at least one spoke to the inner frame case, wherein the central bolt includes an airflow passage extending radially through the central bolt aligned with the inlet passage. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Palmer (US 2013/0074518 Al, pub. Mar. 28, 2013) and Durocher et al. (US 8,347,500 B2, iss. Jan. 8, 2013) ("Durocher"). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error because, among other reasons, the [Examiner's] proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Palmer. In particular, Palmer is directed to a connector having a hollow body for aligning with a hollow length of a tie rod. Palmer [,I 5]. Incorporating [Durocher's] connector lugs 52 and 54 would be contrary to the principle of 2 Appeal2018-005179 Application 14/598,574 Palmer of forming a connection and flow path with a hollow connector aligned with a hollow length of the tie rod .... The change in principle of operation of Palmer is further supported by the Examiner now adding fasteners to the combination to secure the mounting lugs 56, 58 to the tabs 52, 54 [as disclosed in Durocher] ([see] Examiner's Answer [3] and Final [Office Action 6]). . . . As discussed above, the focus of Palmer is to use a connector for both connecting a tie rod and forming a flow path with a tie rod. Reply Br. 2. Based on our review of the record, including Palmer, we agree with Appellants. Palmer describes that [ e Jach tie rod 60 has ... hexagonally[-]shaped body 65 extending along ... longitudinal axis 70. Cooling passageways 75 extend along ... axis 70 within ... hexagonally[-]shaped body 65 of each tie rod 60. [T]ie rod 60 has ... widened base 200 that is 30 percent wider than [a prior art] base ... (see F[igure] 3), and ... counterbore 205 that is concentric with cooling passageway 7 5 and axis 70. . . [C]ounterbore 205 has threads 210 disposed therein for receiving bolt 215. [B]olt 215 has ... cooling passageway 230 extending through the bolt along axis 70, and threads 23 5 that cooperate with threads 210 within the counterbore. Palmer ff 14--15 (bold omitted). Consistent with Palmer's description, Palmer's figures illustrate that the cooling passageways extend through tie rods 60 and the bolts. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 4. Thus, as set forth above, Palmer's principle of operation is to provide cooling passageways extending through each tie rod 60 and bolt 215, and this principle would be changed by using Durocher's fasteners, lugs, and tabs to connect tie rod 60 to a frame casing (see Answer 2-3), inasmuch as the included fasteners do not include cooling passageways, and further the 3 Appeal2018-005179 Application 14/598,574 fasteners apparently would obstruct a large portion of the tie rods' cooling passageways. Although not argued by Appellants, for reasons similar to those discussed above, the Examiner's proposed modification would make Palmer unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing cooling passageways through tie rods and fasteners; and in view of the differences between Palmer and Durocher, the Examiner does not provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to reconfigure Palmer's arrangement to use Durocher's tabs, lugs, and fasteners. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection. We also do not sustain independent claim lO's rejection, based on a similar analysis, and we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation