Ex Parte Lillis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12938970 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/938,970 11/03/2010
88326 7590 09/30/2016
Kinney&Lange,P.A.
The Kinney & Lange Building
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Lillis
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.
PA0015214U-U74.12-202KL 4472
EXAMINER
SEABE, JUSTIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
smkomarec@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK LILLIS
Appeal2015-000029 1
Application 12/938,9702
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1--4, 9-13, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed May 30,
2014), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Jan. 6,
2014) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 7, 2014).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation, LLC (Br. 2).
Appeal2015-000029
Application 12/938,970
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure relates generally to rotary machines, and
specifically to turbomachinery (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A rotary apparatus comprising:
a shaft having a rotational axis;
a rotation indicator located on the shaft;
a target feature proximate the rotation indicator and
extending circumferentially about the shaft, wherein the target
feature has a circumferential face extending along the rotational
axis and a radial face extending transversely to the rotational
axis; and
a sensor proximate the target feature and oriented
toward the rotation indicator to sense a rotational speed of the
shaft, wherein the sensor is further oriented toward the target
feature to sense transverse vibrations of the shaft based on a
radial distance to the target feature and longitudinal vibrations
of the shaft based on an axial distance to the target feature;
wherein the circumferential face of the target
feature is axially arcuate proximate the sensor.
(Br., Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 24 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mollmann (US 6,445,995 B 1, iss. Sept. 3, 2002),
Treutenaere (FR 2930037, pub. Oct. 16, 2009), and
Shimomura (US 2007 /0268014 Al, pub. Nov. 22, 2007).
2
Appeal2015-000029
Application 12/938,970
2. Claims 3, 19, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mollmann,
Treutenaere, Shimomura, and Bums (US 7 ,285,949 B2,
iss. Oct. 23, 2007).
3. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mollmann,
Treutenaere, Shimomura, and Klein (US 4,905,507, iss.
Mar. 6, 1990).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to provide
sufficient articulated reasoning for the combination of Mollman and
Treutenaere, or to provide reasoning that is more than conclusory (see
Br. 6).
The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sensor of
Mollmann by orienting it at an angle with respect to the rotational axis as
taught by Treutenaere in order to detect vibrational movement in the
transverse and longitudinal directions, i.e., the radial and axial directions
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 8). However, Treutenenaere indicates that its sensor 7
may be either parallel to the axis of rotation or oblique because the bore in
which it sits may be either parallel to the axis of rotation or oblique (transl.
p. 3--4). The Examiner does not explain, nor does Treutenaere, why it is
necessary for the sensor to be oblique, even if it is a preferred embodiment.
3
Appeal2015-000029
Application 12/938,970
We conclude that the Examiner's reasoning is insufficiently articulated in
view of the multiple possible orientations of the sensor.
Further, the Examiner's statement that the sensor of Mollmann may
be oriented as taught by Treutenaere is undermined by the Examiner's
statement that the sensor of Mollmann may be replaced by that of
Treutenaere (Ans. 8). In other words, the nature of the proposed
combination is unclear.
We also determine that the Examiner insufficiently articulated the
reasoning for further modifying Treutenaere with the teachings of
Shimomura for "allowing for transverse and longitudinal vibrations to be
detected" (Final Act. 3). This reasoning is conclusory because, according to
the Examiner, detection of vibrations (transverse and longitudinal) would
already be accomplished by the combination of Mollmann and Treutenaere
(see supra).
The Examiner further states that it would have been obvious to
modify target 8 of Treutenaere to be inclined in an "axially arcuate" manner,
as is inclined part 12a of blade 12 in Shimomura (e.g., Fig. 8A) (Ans. 9).
Paragraphs 43 and 49-50 of Shimomura, on which the Examiner relied,
describe an angle theta of inclined part 12a from the direction of rotation,
but we find that this angle from the direction of rotation does not relate to
the inclined part being "axially arcuate," as recited. See also Shimomura,
Fig. 7 (depicting angle theta). The reasoning for the combination of the
three references is therefore conclusory. As such, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
4
Appeal2015-000029
Application 12/938,970
Independent claims j j and 20 and their dependent claims
Independent claims 11 and 20 contain similar language and
requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 11and20, and the rejections of their
dependent claims, for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect
to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 9-13, 16, 17, 19-21,
23, and 24 is reversed.
REVERSED
5