Ex Parte Hindle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

13239115 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/239,115 09/21/2011 Timothy Hindle H0031215 (002.0290) 1322
89955 7590 12/01/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY HINDLE, BRIAN COTTRELL, and TOREY DAVIS
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Timothy Hindle et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13—17, 19,
and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Honeywell International, Inc. (the “Assignee”) is the real party in interest.
2 Claims 2, 4, 5, 12, and 18 have been canceled. Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1,11, and 16 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention. Certain disputed
limitations are italicized.
1. A gas turbine engine assembly mountable to an
airframe, the gas turbine engine assembly comprising:
a gas turbine engine; and
a vibration isolation mount comprising a plurality of
three parameter axial struts attached to the gas turbine engine at
a plurality of different locations and projecting radially outward
therefrom for attachment to the airframe, the plurality of three
parameter axial struts tuned (i) to minimize the transmission of
vibrations from the gas turbine engine to the airframe during
operation of the gas turbine engine, and (ii) to impart the
vibration isolation mount with a maximum stiffness in a thrust
load direction to compensate for thrust loads generated by the
gas turbine engine.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 6—10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Olsen (US 6,328,293 Bl, iss. Dec. 11,
2001) and Davis (US 5,332,070, iss. July 26, 1994). Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 11 and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over O’Brien (US 5,443,229, iss. Aug. 22, 1995), Olsen, and
Davis. Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1, 3, 16, and 17
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite, inter alia, plural three-parameter
axial struts tuned to impart a vibration isolation mount with “a maximum
stiffness in a thrust load direction.” Regarding independent claims 1 and 16,
the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Olsen discloses axial struts 25a—25g
“tuned to impart the vibration isolation mount with a maximum stiffness in a
thrust load direction”3 to compensate for thrust loads generated by the
engine. Final Act. 3 (citing Olsen 5:20-36).
Though addressed under separate headings, Appellants argue claims
1, 3, 16, and 17 as a group. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 3,
16, and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants argue that the cited
paragraph of Olsen does not support the Examiner’s finding regarding
Olsen’s struts 25a—25g. See Appeal Br. 17—18. Rather, Appellants argue,
the cited paragraph of Olsen discloses “the manner in which stiffness and
damping of each isolator 32 (shown in Olsen FIGs. 2a and 2b) can be
changed by adjusting the spring rate of the isolators,” which does not
support a finding that Olsen discloses “tuning struts or linkages such that the
entire suspension mount [i.e., the stiffness of the collective struts 25a—25g]
is imparted with a maximum stiffness in a thrust load direction of a gas
turbine engine.” Id. at 18.
The Examiner responds that the cited paragraph of Olsen discloses
changing the stiffness of each individual isolator to dynamically tune both
axial and radial stiffness, such that Olsen’s isolators 25a—25g can be tuned
3 We understand the “thrust load direction” to be an axial direction.
3
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
individually to give “an overall stiffness in the thrust load direction, i.e.,
[such that] a local maximum of stiffness is given in the thrust load
direction.” Ans. 3.
Appellants reply that adjusting stiffness of individual isolators along
their axial direction is not the same as maximizing a collective stiffness of
the isolators along a thrust load direction to compensate for thrust loads
generated by the engine. Reply Br. 4—6.
We agree with the Examiner. The phrase “to impart a vibration
isolation mount with a maximum stiffness in a thrust load direction . . .” is
functional language modifying the claimed tuning of struts or tuned struts. It
is unclear from Appellants’ Specification and arguments presented how this
functional language limits the structure of the claimed struts or the step of
tuning the struts. Lacking such a limitation on the recited structure or steps,
we agree with the Examiner that the claimed phrase is met by the cited art,
because the phrase fails to patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus and
method from the prior art.
Claims 6—10
Dependent claims 6—10 include additional functional language
addressing various tuning characteristics of the claimed struts. Appellants
argue that, in rejecting each of claims 6—10, the Examiner “simply repeats
the statement that the asserted combination of the Olsen and Davis
references are capable of being tuned to satisfy” the limitations recited in
claims 6—10. Appeal Br. 23. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
determination is insufficient in “simply alleging] that a prior art device or
system could be modified to include an expressly-claimed structural feature
or characteristic.” Id.
4
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
Again, the recited functional language modifying the claimed tuned
stmts does not appear to limit the stmcture of the claimed stmts. Lacking
such a limitation on the recited stmcture, we agree with the Examiner that
the phrases recited in each of dependent claims 6—10 are met by the cited art,
because the functional language therein fails to patentably distinguish the
claimed apparatus from the prior art. Appellants have not explained why the
cited art is not capable of performing the same function, and we discern no
error in the Examiner’s finding and conclusions regarding claims 6—10. See
In reSchreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 19 and 20
Dependent claims 19 and 20 similarly recite functional language
addressing various tuning characteristics of the claimed stmts. As explained
above, the recited functional language modifying the claimed tuned stmts
does not appear to limit the stmcture of the claimed stmts or the step of
tuning the stmts. Lacking such a limitation on the recited stmcture or steps,
we agree with the Examiner that the phrases recited in dependent claims 19
and 20 are met by the cited art, because the functional language therein fails
to patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus and method from the prior
art. Further, Appellants have not explained why the cited are is not capable
of performing the same function.
Rejection II
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites, inter alia, each of “six three parameter
axial stmts independently tuned to impart the vibration isolation mount with
stiffness and damping profiles varying in multiple degrees of freedom.” The
5
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
Examiner finds O’Brien discloses “a vibration isolation mount (42, 43, 45)
comprising at least six axial struts (52, 54, 74, 80) attached to the gas turbine
engine (10) at a plurality of mount points provided on the one or more thrust
rings (32R, 34R, 36R)” to “project radially outward (projecting radially
outward is interpreted as projecting away from the centerline axis 11) from a
side of the gas turbine engine (10) for attachment to the airframe (16).”
Final Act. 5 (citing O’Brien, Figs. 1—4). The Examiner then finds, as above,
that Olsen discloses independently-tuned axial struts having “stiffness and
damping profiles varying in multiple degrees of freedom.” Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify O’Brien to
include Olsen’s independently tuned axial struts “to allow a shift in response
frequencies of the linkage away from major operating frequencies and to
easily accomplish dynamic changes in the overall system.” Id. (citing Olsen
3:24—28).
Appellants argue, as above regarding independent claims 1 and 16,
that Olsen fails to disclose the stiffness and damping profile of its struts
varying “in multiple degrees of freedom due to independent tuning of the
linkages.” Appeal Br. 26. Appellants further argue that the Examiner has
not established the inherency of such a teaching. Id. at 26—27.
As addressed above, the phrase “to impart the vibration isolation
mount with stiffness and damping profiles varying in multiple degrees of
freed” is functional language modifying the claimed tuned struts. It is
unclear from Appellants’ Specification and arguments presented how this
functional language limits the structure of the claimed struts. Lacking such a
limitation on the recited structure, we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed phrase is met by the cited art, because the phrase fails to patentably
6
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
distinguish the claimed apparatus and method from the prior art. Further, to
the extent that the Examiner is relying on inherency of the claimed
functional characteristic or capability, Appellants have not explained why
the cited art does not have the same characteristic, or is not capable of
performing the same function. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213
(CCPA 1971) (“where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a
functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the
claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior
art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the
subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic
relied on”).
Claims 13—15
Appellants again argue that the functional language recited in the
dependent claims is not disclosed or suggested by the Examiner’s cited prior
art. Appeal Br. 27—29. For all of the reasons explained above, the recited
functional language does not appear to limit the structure of the claimed
struts. Lacking such a limitation on the recited structure, we agree with the
Examiner that the phrases recited in dependent claims 13—15 are met by the
cited art, because the functional language therein fails to patentably
distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the pending rejections.
7
Appeal 2016-000420
Application 13/239,115
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8