Ex Parte Little

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2018

13558392 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/558,392 07/26/2012 Jonathan D. Little
54549 7590 04/09/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
61756US01;
67097-1907PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8404
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2018 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 JONATHAN D. LITTLE
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-23, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a bearing retainer that
prevents undesired rotation of the actuator for a variable vane system."
Spec. i-f 1. Apparatus claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
1. A variable vane actuator comprising:
a plurality of vanes which may be rotated to
change an approach angle of associated airfoils;
a cylinder mounted to drive a piston rod to in tum
cause a linkage system to vary the approach angle of said
airfoils, said cylinder having a tailstock at an end remote
from the piston rod, with said tailstock being pivotably
mounted within a clevis, and on a bolt;
a spherical bearing between said bolt and said
tailstock, with said spherical bearing including an inner
member riding on said bolt and having a spherical outer
surface, and an outer member which moves with said
tailstock, and has an spherical inner surface moveable on
said spherical outer surface of said inner member;
said clevis including two spaced ledges; and
a bearing retainer between one of said ledges and
said spherical bearing, said bearing retainer being formed
of a material that is softer than a material forming said
tailstock such that said bearing retainer provides a stop to
prevent undue rotation of said tailstock and said outer
member relative to said inner member.
Snell
Ferris
Taylor
Harrold
Mahy
Montazeri
REFERENCES
us 4,049,360
us 4,174,137
us 4,889,458
US 2004/0022624 Al
US 2005/0196227 Al
US 2007/0189649 Al
2
Sept. 20, 1977
Nov. 13, 1979
Dec. 26, 1989
Feb. 5,2004
Sept. 8, 2005
Aug. 16, 2007
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harrold, Montazeri, and Ferris.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harrold, Montazeri, Ferris, and Taylor.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harrold, Montazeri, Ferris, and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art. 2
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Harrold, Montazeri, Ferris, and Mahy.
Claims 15-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harrold, Snell, Montazeri, and Ferris.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Harrold, Snell, Montazeri, Ferris, and Taylor.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Harrold, Snell, Montazeri, Ferris and Mahy.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant initially contends, "[t] he rejection of all claims is
improper," and proceeds to address the three references common to all the
rejections, i.e., Harrold, Montazeri, and Ferris. App. Br. 3. Regarding
Harrold, Appellant contends, "[n]o problem is identified in Harrold. No
2 The statement that bushings in the form of spherical bearing
retainers are commonly made of metal, for the purpose of
providing a readily manufactured bearing retainer, as set forth
in the previous Office action, is taken to be admitted prior art
because applicant did not traverse the [E]xaminer's assertion of
official notice. MPEP [§] 2144.03.
Final Act. 14.
3
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
mis-aligmne [ n ]t is mentioned" and that "Harrold must be shown to have the
problem Montazeri is addressing." App. Br. 3. The Examiner replies, "there
is no requirement in the 35 [U.S.C. §] 103(a) statute that a primary reference
must teach a solution to a problem being solved." Ans. 7. We agree with
the Examiner's assessment and do not fault the Examiner for relying on
Harrold despite the lack of any problem of mis-alignment being mentioned
in Harrold.
Regarding Montazeri, Appellant contends that this reference
"discloses a generic bearing cartridge. It is not disclosed for use in
supporting a cylinder tailstock." App. Br. 3. First, the Examiner relies on
the primary reference to Harrold for disclosing a tailstock. Final Act. 8 ("the
cylinder having a tailstock Tat an end"); 9 (where this "T" is labeled in the
Examiner's annotation of Figure 10 of Harrold); see also Ans. 5. Further,
the Examiner identified Montazeri' s item 122 (described as a "lug"
(Montazeri i-f 28)) and correlated that structure to a tailstock ("lug/tailstock
122"). Final Act. 10; Ans. 5. In view of the above, Appellant's argument is
not persuasive that the Examiner erred in employing Montazeri' s bearing
"for use in supporting a cylinder tailstock." See App. Br. 3.
Appellant further contends, "[t]here must be a reason for Montazeri to
be incorporated into Harrold" and that "[ t ]here is no such showing on this
record." App. Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1-3. The Examiner's expressed
reason for combining Montazeri and Harrold is "for the purpose of retaining
the spherical bearing and allowing for joint misalignment between the clevis
and the tailstock from a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the
inner member." Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 5-7. On this point, Appellant
acknowledges, "paragraph 29 of Montazeri discusses a spherical bearing
4
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
allowing joint mis-alignment," but Appellant does not explain why
"allowing joint mis-alignment" is not a satisfactory reason for the
combination. App. Br. 3. Appellant's contention is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Appellant further addresses the matter of clearance or contact between
"un-numbered elements and the lug 122 that the Examiner equates to a
tailstock." App. Br. 3. The Examiner, however, states, "no recitations of
clearance can be found in the appealed claims of the present application."
Ans. 7. Accordingly, Appellant is not persuasive of Examiner error on this
point.
Regarding Ferris, Appellant does not dispute Ferris' teaching of a
bearing retainer 15, 17 "being formed of a material that is softer than a
material forming the tailstock." Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 8, Ferris
3:34--36, Fig. 3. Instead, Appellant addresses the amount of mis-alignment
tolerated in Ferris. App. Br. 3. To be clear, Ferris seeks to limit rollover,
not prevent it altogether. Ferris 3:25-36, Fig. 5; see also the clearance
between boss 16 and clevis 4 depicted in Fig. 3. Appellant's focus on Ferris
for reasons other than those relied on by the Examiner is not persuasive that
the Examiner erred in combining Ferris with Harrold and Montazeri.
Appellant also contends, "a proper obviousness rejection[] must have
a reason for combining the references" alleging that the Examiner's
combination of Ferris with the combination of Harrold and Montazeri is
faulty. App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2. The Examiner's stated reason for
the inclusion of the teachings of Ferris is "for the purpose of protecting an
increased portion of the rod/tailstock." Final Act. 12; Ans. 8. Appellant
does not explain how the inclusion of sacrificial wear-bearing surfaces (i.e.,
5
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
Ferris items 15, 17) and how extending these items "radially outwardly to an
edge which faces the tailstock, as taught by Ferris," is not a reason for a
combination with Ferris. Final Act 12. We are instructed that "rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellant does not address the
Examiner's stated reason or otherwise explain why such reason lacks
rational underpinning. We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention.
Now, specifically addressing claims 4 and 11 (we select claim 4 for
review, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)), Appellant contends, "[t]he Examiner
proposes no reason why the truncated structure of Taylor would be
incorporated into the base references." App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner's stated reason is "for the purpose of providing greater
clearance between the bearing retainer and the bearing at the outer periphery
of the bearing retainer." Final Act. 13; Ans. 9. Appellant does not address
this stated reason or otherwise explain its shortcomings, other than to simply
state, "there would have been no reason to incorporate such a structure into
Harrold/Montazeri/Ferris." App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant's
contentions are not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4 and 11.
Regarding claims 6 and 13 (we select claim 6 for review), Appellant
presents a similar argument as above, i.e., "[ w ]ithout a reason, the proposed
modification with Mahy is improper." App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner has expressed a reason for the combination with Mahy (see
Final Act. 15; Ans. 10) and Appellant does not indicate or explain how this
6
Appeal2017-005816
Application 13/558,392
reason lacks "rational underpinning." See supra. We sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6 and 13.
Regarding claims 21-23, Appellant mis-reads the Examiner's
rejection stating, "the Examiner argues that portions 124 and 124a of the
Montazeri et al. patent would be part of the 'bearing retainer."' App. Br. 4.
This is incorrect. The Examiner actually states that the un-numbered
bearing retainer is "between" the ledges 124 (Fig. 2A) and 124a (Fig. 2B).
Final Act. 10, 17; Ans. 11. Accordingly, Appellant's contention, based on a
mis-reading of the Examiner's rejection, is not persuasive the Examiner's
rejection is in error. We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 21-23.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7