Ex Parte Leonard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14207860 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/207,860 03/13/2014 Nicholas Leonard 63929US02; 5941
67097-2149US1
54549 7590 09/05/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LIU, JONATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex PARTE NICHOLAS LEONARD, SOHAIL AHMED, AND
CHRISTOPHER WAITKUS
Appeal 2017-003588
Application 14/207,860
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1,3, and 4 which represent all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a mount between and oil tank and
an engine wall. See Spec. 13.
Appeal 2017-003588
Application 14/207,860
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. An engine comprising:
an oil tank mounted to an engine wall, with clevis ears formed
on both said oil tank and a mount bracket secured to said engine wall,
and a link connecting said mount bracket clevis ears to said oil tank
clevis ears, said link having a pair of spherical bearings providing a
connection allowing movement between said link and said oil tank
clevis ears, and said link and mount bracket clevis ears; and
a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount
bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said
stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said mount
bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said spherical
bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis ears and mount
bracket clevis ears.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1,3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
Sadil et al. (USP 5,435,124 issued July 25, 1995) in view of Dunstan et al.
(USP 5,860,623 issued Jan. 19, 1999). Final Act. 2—7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Sadil and Dunstan teaches
a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount
bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said
stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said
mount bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said
spherical bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis
2
Appeal 2017-003588
Application 14/207,860
ears and mount bracket clevis ears
as recited in claim 1.
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Dunstan do not
teach or suggest a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said
mount bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears. App. Br. 3,
Reply. Br. 2. The Examiner appears to acknowledge that the cited portion of
Dunstan alone does not teach this element as claimed. Ans. 4—5. Instead, in
the Answer, the Examiner points to portions of Sadil (e.g., Sadil Fig. 1, 30,
42) in combination with Dunstan, but the Examiner does not explain the
relevance of these portions of Sadil or explain sufficiently how these
portions teach the claimed elements. Id. In particular, the Examiner has not
explained sufficiently how elements 45 or 53 of Dunstan, which the
Examiner cites as teaching the stiffening elements (Final Act. 3, Ans. 4)
relate to the claimed clevis ears, and which portion of the figures the
Examiner relies on to show the clevis ears, or the stiffening elements
claimed “positioned on an outer side” of the clevis ears.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner has not
shown Sadil and Dunstan, taken alone or in proper combination, teaches or
suggests
a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount
bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said
stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said
mount bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said
spherical bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis
ears and mount bracket clevis ears
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
or dependent claims 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal 2017-003588
Application 14/207,860
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, and 4 is reversed.
REVERSED
4