Ex Parte Heidari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

13679432 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/679,432 11/16/2012
63759 7590 11/23/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohammad A. Heidari
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.
09-0051-US-DIV 5066
EXAMINER
CHANG,RICKKILTAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMAD A. HEIDARI
and ADRIAN STANESCU 1
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and SCOTT C. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 24--29. Appeal Br. 9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Boeing Company is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br.
2) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 24, and 27 are independent with claim 1 reproduced below.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a bearing housing, for an engine, that comprises:
a bearing section that comprises a first cylindrical
shape that comprises a channel capable of receiving bearings;
a base that comprises: a second cylindrical shape, a
ring, and a flange, such that the flange extends, toward the
bearing section, substantially perpendicular from a surface of
the ring, such that the surface faces the bearing section, and the
bearing section and the base each being substantially aligned
centrally along an axis of a shaft of the engine; and
a plurality of members, such that each member of
the plurality of members extends between and directly connects
the bearing section to the flange of the base, such that the each
member of the plurality of members comprises: a length, a
width, and a side, and a configuration for the plurality of
members being selected from a number of configurations that
comprise, for each member of the plurality of members, a cross-
section that comprises an area configured to reduce a stress in
each member, such that responsive to the stress a stiffness
characteristic of each member increases such that a critical
speed increases for the shaft of the engine.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-13, and 24--29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Ommundson (US 6,439,772 Bl, iss. Aug. 27, 2002).
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ommundson.
2
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-13, and 24-29 Anticipated by Ommundson
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-13, and 24--29 as a group. Appeal
Br. 9-14. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 3-13 and 24--29
standing or falling with claim 1. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds that Ommundson teaches a bearing housing as
recited in claim 1 including a bearing section (bearing assembly 46), a base
(mounting flange 86) with a flange, and a plurality of members (springs 84)
extending between the flange of base 86 and bearing section 46 as shown in
Figure 5 of Ommundson. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants argue that Figure 4 of Ommundson teaches an elliptically
shaped race that teaches away from "a bearing section that comprises a first
cylindrical shape" and "a base that comprises a second cylindrical shape" as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellants also argue that teaching an
elliptical bearing race is not identical to showing a bearing section and base
with first and second cylindrical shapes. Id. at 12. Appellants further argue
that neither Figure 3 nor Figure 5 shows these features, and Figure 5 does
not show an axis for an engine shaft as claimed. Id. In addition, Appellants
argue that Ommundson teaches offsetting a cylindrical shaped bearing race
to facilitate the desired deflection and thus teaches away from "the bearing
section and the base each being substantially aligned centrally along an axis
of a shaft of the engine" as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13.
Appellants' argument that Figure 4 of Ommundson does not disclose
a cylindrically-shaped bearing section and base is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Figure 5 of Ommundson to show these features, not the
alternative, elliptical embodiment shown in Figure 4. Final Act. 2; Ans. 5.
3
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
Omnmndson discloses Figure 2 as a cross-section of "an exemplary
embodiment rotor and bearing assembly." Ommundson, 1:65---67. Figure 3
is a partial end view and Figure 5 is a side view of this bearing assembly
shown in Figure 2. Id. at 2:1-10. Figures 2, 3, and 5 all illustrate bearing
assembly 46 and base 86 as cylindrical shaped, as claimed. In this regard,
Ommundson discloses that bearing assembly 46 has an annular-shaped outer
race 54 that includes inner diameter 76 having recess 80 for receiving rolling
elements 52 (bearings). Outer race 54 defines a substantially circular profile
to receive rolling elements 52, which define a substantially circular cross-
sectional profile when assembled as shown in Figure 3. Id. at 2:42---61,
3:66-4:6. Figures 2, 3, and 5 illustrate bearing assembly 46 forming a first
cylindrical shape. Figure 3 also illustrates base flange 86 with a second
cylindrical shape as claimed. Indeed, Appellants acknowledges that these
elements are cylindrical. Id. at 12; see Ans. 5.
Figures 2, 3, and 5 also show bearing assembly 46 and base flange 86
"being substantially aligned centrally along an axis of a shaft of the engine"
as claimed. As the Examiner correctly finds, Ommundson discloses both
elements being aligned centrally along an axis of rotor shaft 42 in Figure 2.
See Ommundson, 2:33---66, Fig. 3. Ommundson also discloses that rotor
shaft 42 is substantially similar to rotor shaft 26 of gas turbine engine 10
illustrated in Figure 1. Id. at 2:35-36, Fig. 5; Ans. 5.
Appellants argue, however, that Ommundson does not disclose "the
bearing section and the base each being substantially aligned centrally along
an axis of a shaft of the engine" as claimed, because Ommundson's Figure 3
shows the bearing outer race 54 as being offset radially from sump housing
center 124. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
This argument is not persuasive because Ommundson teaches that the
bearing assembly 46 is centered in damper sub-assembly 96 as the Examiner
correctly finds. Ans. 6. In particular, bearing assembly 46 is centered in
damper insert 98 so the center of damper insert 98 is substantially concentric
with bearing assembly center 130 in Figure 3. Id. (citing Ommundson,
4: 15-21 ). Thus, bearing section 46 is "substantially aligned centrally" with
base flange 86 along axis 130, as claimed, because base flange 86 follows
the circumference of damper insert 98 as shown in Figure 2 of Ommundson.
Appellants are correct that Ommundson discloses bearing assembly
axis 130 and base flange 86 to be offset 134 from sump housing center 124,
which is "substantially concentric" with a center of engine 10. Ommundson,
3:63---65, 4:7-12; Reply Br. 2--4. However, claim 1 only requires the bearing
section and base to be "substantially aligned centrally along an axis of a
shaft of the engine." (Emphasis added). Words of approximation, such as
"such as "generally" and "substantially," are descriptive terms commonly
used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified
parameter. Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d
1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak
Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("generally" and
terms of approximation need not be construed with mathematical precision).
An ordinary meaning of "substantial" is "being largely but not wholly
that which is specified." Definition of substantial by Merriam-Webster at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ substantial (last viewed Nov.
6, 2018); see also Clare v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 819 F.3d 1323, 1330 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (same). Appellants do not argue any other meaning or point to
any disclosure in their Specification that contravenes this ordinary meaning.
5
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
Omnmndson discloses that the offset 134 between axis 130 of bearing
assembly 46/base 86 and axis 124 of the engine shaft is approximately 0.001
inches. Ommundson, 4: 12-14. Thus, bearing section 46 and base 86 are
"substantially aligned" centrally with the engine shaft even if we interpret
"alignment" to mean "concentric" as Appellants implicitly argue. Bearing
section 46 and base 86 also are "substantially aligned" with the engine shaft
because they extend in a spaced, parallel relation to the central engine shaft.
Finally, Appellants argue that Ommundson's members lack "a cross-
section that comprises an area configured to reduce a stress in each member,
such that responsive to the stress a stiffness characteristic of each member
increases such that a critical speed increases for the shaft of the engine" as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-12, 13. Appellants argue that this feature
controls the stiffness of the bearing housing to allow control of the critical
speed of the engine shaft, and Ommundson lacks such elements. Id. at 13.
Whatever else this limitation encompasses, 2 it encompasses members
with a cross-sectional area that increases members' stiffness, as Appellants
assert. Id. at 5 (claimed subject matter), 11 (citing Spec. ,r,r 44--47), 13
(citing Spec. ,r 131). We adopt this interpretation to resolve this dispute.
2 This limitation could mean that the cross sectional area of each member is
configured to reduce a stress in each member somehow and this reduced
stress effectively makes each member stiffer because it is subjected to less
stress thereby to increase a stiffness characteristic of each member. This
limitation also could mean that the cross sectional area of each member is
configured to increase the stiffness of each member so each member can
withstand greater stress without deflection and damage to the engine. This
limitation also could mean that the cross sectional area is configured to
reduce stress in each member and this reduced stress somehow increases a
stiffness characteristic of each member. Claim 1 does not recite what the
stress is reduced in relation to or what the stiffness is increased in relation to.
6
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
Appellants disclose that the stiffness of the bearing housing influences
the critical speed of the shaft, which is the speed at which high amplitude
vibrations occur. Spec. ,r 131. Controlling stiffness this way may guide the
critical speed of the shaft beyond the engine's normal operating range. Id.
The Specification discloses various embodiments that increase the
cross-sectional area of the members and reduce stress in the members to
increase stiffness of the bearing housing. Spec. ,r 45. The embodiments use
various configurations of the members to control the stiffness of the bearing
housing and to control the stress in the members that extend between the
bearing section and base of the bearing housing. Id. ,r 46. The configuration
of the bearing housing ( and its members) is selected to provide the desired
amount of stiffness for the housing and the desired amount of stress for the
plurality of members of the bearing housing. Id. ,r,r 124, 125.
Appellants disclose that these objectives are achieved by configuring
the members that extend between the base and bearing section to be "at least
one of' the following: (1) members extending at an angle from the bearing
section to the base; (2) members having a curve relative to the central axis;
and (3) members having a width that increases and decreases along the
length of the members to form a bowtie shape. Id. ,r,r 47, 124, Figs. 13-21.
We agree with the Examiner that Ommundson discloses members 84
with angled, curved, and bowtie configurations that Appellants disclose will
decrease stress in, and increase the stiffness of, the members as claimed. See
Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Fig. 5); Appeal Br. 5 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 125, 129-131 ).
Figure 5 of Ommundson shows angled springs 84 of increasing/decreasing
width along their length that form a bowtie shape. Springs 84 also curve
relative to the central axis of bearing assembly 46 in Figures 2 and 5.
7
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
Thus, the Examiner had a sound basis for finding that Ommundson' s
bearing housing members (springs 84) provide stiffness and stress features
as claimed because Ommundson's springs 84 have the configurations that
Appellants disclose as providing those claimed features/functions.
Appellants do not explain why Ommundson's springs 84 lack these
characteristics when they are configured as Appellants disclose. See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (when the Patent Office has
reason to believe that a functional limitation that is asserted to be critical to
establishing novelty may be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it can
require an applicant to prove that the subject matter disclosed in the prior art
does not possess that claimed characteristic); Appeal Br. 10-14.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 24--29.
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 Unpatentable over Ommundson
Because we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 12, and 13
as anticipated by Ommundson, the issue of whether Ommundson renders
these claims obvious is mooted. We further note that Appellants' arguments
(Appeal Br. 14--15) do not address the Examiner's findings that Ommundson
teaches channels for balls/rollers as recited in claims 7 and 8 and a bearing
housing for an aircraft engine as recited in claims 12 and 13. See Final
Act. 3; see also Ommundson, 1:5-8, 2:42-61, Figs. 1-3, 5.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 24--29 as anticipated by
Ommundson.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal2018-000277
Application 13/679,432
AFFIRMED
9