Ex Parte Kupratis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201813437448 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/437,448 04/02/2012 Daniel Bernard Kupratis 67097-1817PUSl;61357US03 2409 54549 7590 02/27/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER GOYAL, ARUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2018 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 DANIEL BERNARD KUPRATIS and FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ1 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 3,5,7, and 9-11. See Appeal Br. 2, 3. Claims 4 and 8 are withdrawn. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 3, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 3. A gas turbine engine comprising: a first shaft and a second shaft rotatable about a common axis with one another; a fan; and a first gear train and a second gear train interconnected to one another, the first gear train and the second gear train together couple the first shaft to the fan, wherein the first gear train is an epicyclic gear train, wherein the second gear train is configured to provide a speed reduction, wherein the epicyclic gear train is a differential gear train that includes a sun gear, planetary gears arranged about and intermeshing with the sun gear, and a ring gear circumscribing and intermeshing with the planetary gears. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS2 Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.3 Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schilling (US 7,882,693 B2, iss. Feb. 8, 2011) and Mitrovic (US 7,104,918 B2, iss. Sept. 12, 2006). 2 The Examiner withdrew the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, and 11 over claims of copending Application Nos. 13/437,363 and 13/437,395 after Appellants filed a terminal disclaimer that was accepted on July 26, 2016. Ans. 2; see Final Act. 2—3; Appeal Br. 3. 3 The Examiner’s entry of an Amendment After Final, filed March 17, 2016, which amends claims 3 and 11 to recite “a first shaft,” “a second shaft,” “a first gear train,” and “a second gear train” (claim 1) and “the first shaft and the second shaft” (claim 11), appears to overcome the stated bases for this rejection. Appeal Br. 3; Final Act. 4. Thus, we consider this rejection to be overcome even though it was not withdrawn formally. See Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 ANALYSIS Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9—11 Rejected Over Schilling and Mitrovic Appellants argue claims 3,5,7, and 9-11 as a group. Appeal Br. 3—6. We select claim 3 as representative, with claims 5, 7, and 9-11 standing or falling with claim 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding claim 3, the Examiner finds that Schilling teaches a gas turbine engine including first and second epicyclic gear trains that provide speed reduction as claimed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Schilling does not teach the arrangement of the epicyclic gear trains and whether they include a sun gear, planetary gears, and a ring gear, as claimed. Id.', Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Mitrovic teaches that epicyclic gears include a sun gear, planetary gears arranged around the sun gear, and a ring gear, as claimed. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use such components in the epicyclic gear train of Schilling to reduce torsional deflection, as Mitrovic teaches. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Mitrovic teaches planetary and star gear trains as equivalent, alternate gear trains, e.g., for providing reduced rotary output speeds. Id. at 6; Ans. 3. Appellants argue that claim 3 recites an epicyclic gear train that is a differential gear train including a sun gear, planetary gears, and a ring gear and Schilling does not disclose this feature. Appeal Br. 3. Appellants also argue that Schilling’s gear trains 100, 102 are epicyclic star gear trains, not planetary gear arrangements, as claimed, because the intermediate gears of both gear trains 100, 102 are supported by support structure 120 grounded to flow guide vanes so the planetary gears does not rotate about the sun as required for a planetary gear arrangement. Appeal Br. 7—\\ Reply Br. 2. 3 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, and foremost, we do not interpret claim 3 to recite a “planetary gear train” in which intermediate planetary gears must move/orbit around a central sun gear. This is so for two reasons. Claim 3 does not recite these functions for the claimed “planetary gears.” Instead, claim 3 recites the epicyclic gear train including “a sun gear, planetary gears arranged about and intermeshing with the sun gear, and a ring gear circumscribing and intermeshing with the planetary gears.” Claim 3 does not address whether the planetary gears move or orbit around the sun gear, and we decline to read such unclaimed features into claim 3 absent a lexicographic definition or disclaimer of a star gear arrangement in the Specification. Appellants do not argue either basis for so limiting the term “planetary gears.” See Appeal Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ Specification discloses a “planetary gear train” as having a planetary gear set surrounding and intermeshing with a centrally located sun gear connected to a low spool, wherein a ring gear circumscribes and intermeshes with the planetary gears. Spec. 13. A “fan shaft is connected to either the planetary gears or the ring gear, and the other of the planetary gears and ring gear is grounded to the engine static structure.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification uses the term “planetary gear train” to refer both to an epicyclic planetary gear train in which the planetary gears move about a sun gear (see Appeal Br. 4) and also a “star gear train” in which the “planetary” gears are fixed as stars and do not orbit the sun gear (id. ). We agree with the Examiner that Schilling and Mitrovic render obvious an epicyclic gear train having a sun gear, planetary gears arranged about and intermeshing with the sun gear, and a ring gear circumscribing and intermeshing with the planetary gears as claimed. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. 4 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 It is undisputed that Schilling discloses first and second gear trains 100, 102 that are epicyclic gear trains. See Schilling, 4:47—51; Appeal Br. 3^4. It also is undisputed that Mitrovic teaches that epicyclic gear trains include both planetary gear trains with moving planets and star gear trains with fixed planets as “alternate arrangements” for reduced speed output and counter rotation. Mitrovic, 1:12—28. Like Appellants, Mitrovic refers to the gears located between the sun gear and the ring gear as “planetary gears” whether these gears and their carrier rotate about the sun as in a planetary gear train or are held stationary as in a star gear train. Id. at 1:21—28. Thus, the claimed term “planetary gears” means “gears arranged about and intermeshing with the sun gear and the ring gear, which circumscribes the planetary gears” irrespective of whether the planetary gears orbit around the sun gear or are held stationary. This meaning is consistent with the claim language, the Specification, and the ordinary usage in the art as evidenced by Mitrovic. Merely reciting “planetary gears” in claim 3 does not require the planetary gears to orbit around the sun gear as Appellants argue. Appeal Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 1—2. As a result, Schilling’s disclosure of epicyclic gear trains 100, 102 satisfies claim 3’s recital of “an epicyclic gear train” and “a second gear train configured to provide a speed reduction. No changes are needed. Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not consider planetary and star gear trains as equivalents and thus would have no reason to modify Schilling’s star gear train with Mitrovic’s planetary gear train because to do so would change Schilling’s principle of operation and render Schilling unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 4—6. Appellants also argue that the change would require substantial reconstruction. Id. at 5. 5 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 This argument is not persuasive because it misperceives the rejection of the Examiner. The Examiner is not proposing to change the operation of Schilling. The Examiner correctly finds that Schilling teaches first and second gear trains 100, 102. Both gear trains are epicyclic. Both gear trains provide gear reduction. Final Act. 5; see Schilling, 3:7—26, 4:47—63, Fig. 2. Thus, each gear train 100, 102 satisfies claim 3’s requirement for a first gear train that is epicyclic or a second gear train that provides speed reduction. Final Act. 3. Gear trains 100, 102 can be either of the claimed gear trains. The Examiner cites Mitrovic to teach that epicyclic gear trains, such as those disclosed in Schilling, include the claimed sun gear, planetary gears, and ring gear. Final Act. 5. The Examiner is not changing the operation of Schilling, however. The Examiner cites Mitrovic as evidence that epicyclic gear trains are understood to include sun gear, planetary gears, and ring gear, and that it would have been obvious to include such gears in Schilling’s gear trains 100, 102 to reduce torsional deflection as Mitrovic teaches. Id. Whether Schilling’s epicyclic gear trains 100, 102 include planetary gears that orbit around a sun gear or are stationary is immaterial to whether claim 3 is obvious. This is so because claim 3 does not recite any functions of the sun, planetary, or ring gears as interpreted and discussed above. The Examiner is not changing Schilling’s epicyclic gear train from a “star” gear train to a “planetary” gear train based on asserted equivalence or any other basis. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Claim 3 does not require such a change, and the Examiner does not propose one. Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not need to incorporate a planetary gear system into Schilling and such bodily incorporation is not the standard of obviousness in any case. Ans. 4; see Appeal Br. 5. 6 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 Based on the foregoing, we do not need to decide whether Figure 2 of Schilling teaches a “planetary” or a “star” gear train. See Ans. 2—3; Reply Br. 2. It is sufficient for the Examiner’s obviousness rejection that Schilling teaches epicyclic gear trains (gearbox 100 and gearbox 102) that include the claimed sun gear, planetary gears, and ring gear, as Mitrovic teaches. Appellants’ argument that claim 7 establishes that “planetary gears” in claim 3 “require a structural configuration in which the planetary gears orbit around the sun gear with a carrier” (see Reply Br. 1) is not persuasive. To the contrary, dependent claim 7’s recital that “the planetary gears are supported by a carrier [that] is configured to receive rotational input from one of the first shaft and the second gear train” indicates that the planetary gears in claim 3 lack this structure. See Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[t]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Seachange Inti, Inc. v. C-CORInc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1368—69 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same). Appellants’ argument that claim 7 recites a planetary gear train with a carrier configured to rotate about the sun gear also is untimely as it is made for the first time in the Reply Brief, not in response to any argument in the Answer and without good cause shown. See Reply Br. 1—2; 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Even so, Schilling discloses that epicyclic gearbox 102 provides speed reduction and also rotates fan assembly 60 and booster compressor 22 in the same rotational direction as low-pressure turbine 20 that is input thereto. Schilling, 3:13—26. Mitrovic teaches that these features are characteristic of gear trains in which the planetary gears and their carrier orbit around the sun gear (receive rotational input) as recited in claim 7. See Mitrovic, 1:21—25. 7 Appeal 2017-004244 Application 13/437,448 Schilling also discloses that gearbox 100 reduces the rotational output and changes the rotational direction of fan assembly 50 from the rotational direction n of low-pressure turbine 20 to which it is coupled. Schilling, 3:7— 12 and 18—20. Mitrovic teaches that such reduced, counter-rotational rotary output is characteristic of star gear trains. See Mitrovic, 1:25—28. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, and 9—11. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 3,5,7, and 9—11. 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation