Ex Parte Loffredo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

11693871 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111693,871 03/30/2007 Constantino V. Loffredo
54549 7590 05/17/2016
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
67097-798PUS 1 ;0694 1032
EXAMINER
JOYCE, WILLIAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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 CONSTANTINO V. LOFFREDO
Appeal2013-002221
Application 11/693,871
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 34--40 and 45--49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a mechanical linkage system for use
in a gas turbine engine. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 45, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
45. A linkage system comprising:
a first torque tube component having a cavity
which defines a cavity axis, said first torque tube
component defines a set of arms which define a
pivot axis;
a second torque tube component mounted with
respect to said first torque tube component;
a lever arm that defines an assembly flat, said
lever arm movably mounted between said set of
arms;
a connection mounted along said pivot axis to
pivotably mount said lever arm to said first torque
tube component, said pivot axis transverse to said
cavity axis;
a bias member within said cavity;
a piston biased by said bias member along said
cavity axis toward said pivot axis to abut said lever
arm, said lever arm pivotable between an
operational angular position and a non-operating
angular position about said pivot axis, said
operational angular position locates said piston off
said assembly flat so as to preload said piston to
provide a radial load along said cavity axis toward
said pivot axis to close radial clearances of said
connection, said non-operational angular position
locates said piston to abut said assembly flat such
that said piston is under minimal load; and
further comprising an actuator mounted to said
first torque tube component to selectively rotate
said first torque tube component with respect to
said second torque tube component.
2
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Loomis
Scott
Bonniot
Ojiro
us 472,483
us 2,886,998
us 6,145,416
EP 0 978 689 Bl
Apr. 5, 1892
May 19, 1959
Nov. 14, 2000
Dec. 3, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 34--38, 40, and 45--49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as anticipated by Ojiro.
2. Claims 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b ), as anticipated by Scott.
3. Claim 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b ), as anticipated by Loomis.
4. Claim 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b ), as anticipated by Bonniot.
5. Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over any one of Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, or Bonniot.
OPINION
Anticipation of Claims 45 and 47 by Ojiro
Claim 45
The Examiner finds that Ojiro discloses all of the limitations of
claim 45. Final Action 3. Appellant traverses the rejection by arguing that
the Examiner failed to identify any structure that could be considered the
claimed "lever arm." Appeal Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner identifies element 27 of Figure 4 of Ojiro
as the first component with a cavity. Ans. 6. The Examiner identifies
3
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
element 36 of Figure 4 as satisfying the lever arm limitation. Id. The
Examiner identifies element 25 as satisfying the second torque tube
limitation. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously
considers element 3 6 to be both the lever arm structure and the second
component structure of claim 45. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that
element 36 is not capable of meeting both of these structural limitations. Id.
Ojiro discloses the following with respect to the embodiment depicted
in Figure 4.
[T]he adjacent main driving shaft 23 and the link bar 25' are
linked together via a driving lever 27' and an intermediate
joint 36, and the driven shaft 21 and the link bar 25' are
likewise linked together via another driving lever 27' and
intermediate joint 36. The driving lever 27' and the intermediate
joint 36 are connected together via a pivot pin 32' and the
intermediate joint 36 and the link bar 25' are connected together
via a rotary pin 3 7.
Ojiro lf 45. Contrary to Appellant's position, the Examiner does not identify
element 3 6 as satisfying both the lever arm and second torque tube
component structural limitations. Rather, the Examiner identifies
element 36 as the lever arm and element 25 as the second torque tube
component. Ans. 6. Elements 25 and 36 are two distinct structural
components of the Figure 4 embodiment of Ojiro. Ojiro i-f 45, Figs. 4(a) &
4(b).
The Examiner's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. We sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 45.
4
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
Claim 47
Claim 4 7 depends from claim 45 and adds the limitation: "wherein
said first torque tube component is indirectly mounted to said actuator via
said second torque tube component." Claims App.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to identify structure that
satisfies the foregoing limitation of claim 47. Appeal Br. 5. In response, the
Examiner states that, in the Figure 4 embodiment of Ojiro, a first torque tube
component 27 is attached to actuator 23. Ans. 6. The Examiner further
states that another first torque tube component is connected to driven
member 21. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner further explains that, if the first
torque tube component connected to driven member 21 is considered the
torque tube defined in claim 4 7, then such first torque tube component is
indirectly mounted to actuator 21 via second torque tube component 25. Id.
at 7.
In reply, Appellant argues that it is improper for the Examiner to
identify two distinct structural elements (27') of Ojiro as satisfying the first
torque tube element of claim 45. Reply Br. at 4. Appellant accuses the
Examiner of relying on one of the two elements (27') for purposes of
rejecting claim 45 and relying on the second of the two elements (27') for
purposes of rejecting claim 47. Id.
With respect to the Figure 4 embodiment of Ojiro, element 23 is
described as a "main driving shaft." Ojiro i-f 44. Similarly, element 21 is
described as a "driven shaft." Id. Main driving shaft 23 and driven shaft 21
are connected via a linkage assembly. Ojiro, Figs. 4(a) & 4(b ). Each of
driving shaft 23 and driven shaft 21 is directly connected to a driving
lever 27' which, in tum, is connected to an intermediate joint 36. Id. Link
5
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
bar 25' connects the two intermediate joints 36 to each other through two
respective rotary pins 37. Id.
To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must expressly or
inherently disclose each claim limitation. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, disclosure of
each element is not quite enough, as anticipation also requires the presence
in a single prior art disclosure of all the elements "arranged as in the claim."
Finisar Corp. v. Direct Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Ohiro Fig. 4(a) has two components identified and labeled 27', one on
the left side of the Figure and the other on the right. See Ohiro Fig. 4(a), In
rejecting claim 45, the Examiner relies on driving lever 27' on the left side of
Figure 4(a) as the "first torque component." As shown in Figure 4(a), such
driving lever 27' on the left side of Figure 4(a) is directly connected to
driving shaft 23. However, in rejecting claim 47, the Examiner relies on
driving lever 27' on the right side of Figure 4(a) as the "first torque tube
component." Such driving lever 27' on the right side of Figure 4(a) is
directly connected to driven shaft 21 and indirectly connected to main drive
shaft 23 via link bar 25. See Ojiro, Fig. 4(a).
The Examiner errs in designating element 27' on the left side of Figure
4( a) as satisfying the first torque tube component for purposes of rejecting
claim 45 and then designating element 27' on the right side of Figure 4(a) as
satisfying the identical claim limitation in claim 45 for purposes of rejecting
claim 4 7, which depends from claim 45.
We do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 47.
6
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
Anticipation of Claim 34 and its Dependent Claims
by Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and/or Bonniot
Claim 34
The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by each of Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and Bonniot. Final Action 3---6.
Appellant, in the Appeal Brief, argues all four grounds of rejection under a
single heading. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant's Brief only mentions the Scott
reference by name and does not otherwise separately identify or comment on
the other three cited anticipation references.
Our rules explain that "[ e Jach ground of rejection contested by
appellant must be argued under a separate heading." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Our rules further explain that, with respect to each
ground of rejection, Appellant's arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred. Id.
Appellant argues that the limitation in claim 40 directed to a lever arm
being configured to rotate in response to movement of the first torque tube
component is lacking from the prior art, and then states that "[c]laim 34
includes a similar feature." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner states that the Appellant's argument is not
understood as claim 34 does not define a lever or a torque tube. Ans. 3.
Furthermore, the Examiner states that the recitation of the second component
being rotated with movement of the first component does not define over the
prior art because the claim fails to define which axis the second component
rotates about.
In reply, Appellant, in a conclusory manner, accuses the Examiner of
interpreting the claims, the specification, and the prior art in an overly broad
7
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
manner, but does not otherwise identify any specific shortcomings in the
rejections. Reply Br. 2.
We are not apprised of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments and
evidence. Contrary to our rules, Appellant has co-mingled its arguments
across multiple, separate grounds of rejection, each based on a different prior
art reference. Appellant has failed to articulate, with evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning, that any particular claim limitation of claim 34 is
missing in any one, much less each and every one, of the four prior art
references that the Examiner has applied in four separately denominated
grounds of rejection.
We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 34 with
respect to each of the four asserted grounds of rejection.
Claims 35-38 and 46
Claims 35-38 and 46 depend from claim 34. Claims App. Appellant
does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims. Thus,
Appellant has waived the right to argue these claims and we, therefore,
sustain the rejection of claims 35-38 and 46. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015); see alsoHyattv. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ...
the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as
waived").
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 35-38 and 46 as
anticipated by each of Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and Bonniot.
8
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
Anticipation of Claim 40 and its Dependent Claims
by Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and/or Bonniot
Claim 40
Appellant appears to argue that the prior art fails to disclose the
limitation in claim 40 directed to a lever arm that is configured to rotate in
response to movement of a first torque tube component. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant also appears to argue that the prior art fails to disclose a lever arm
that is mounted between the set of arms provided by the first torque tube
component. Id.
As with claim 34, Appellant again co-mingles its arguments among
four separately identified grounds of rejection. Appeal Br. 6. The section of
Appellant's Appeal Brief that addresses claim 40 does not mention Ojiro by
name, nor does it advance an argument that we are able to discern as
attempting to distinguish the subject matter of claim 40 from Ojiro. Id.
Consequently, we are not apprised of any error with respect to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 40 as anticipated by Ojiro. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 40 on the Ojiro ground. As our decision with
respect to Ojiro fully disposes of the rejection of claim 40 and claims
depending therefrom, we need not reach the additional grounds of rejection
of claim 40 over Scott, Loomis, and Bonniot. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50( a)( 1)
("The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified
constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that
claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.").
Claims 48 and 49
Claims 48 and 49 depend from claim 40. Claims App. Appellant
does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims. Thus,
Appellant has waived the right to argue these claims and we, therefore,
9
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
sustain the rejection of claims 48 and 49. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015); Hyatt, 551 F .3d at 1314.
Unpatentability of Claims 36 and 39
over Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and/or Bonniot
Claims 36 and 39 depend from claim 34, which the Examiner finds
anticipated by each of Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, and/or Bonniot, as discussed
above. Claims App. With respect to claim 36, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to replace the pin disclosed in the prior art with a
bolt. Final Action 7. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have done this to facilitate the assembly/disassembly of the
linkage joint. Id. Similarly, with respect to claim 39, The Examiner
concludes that it would have been a mere matter of design choice for a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the piston disclosed in the prior art such that the biasing member
extends in the piston so as to maintain alignment. Id.
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims.
Thus, Appellant has waived the right to argue these claims and we,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 36 and 39. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015); Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 34--38, 40, 45, 46, 48,
and 49 as anticipated is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 47 as anticipated by
Oj iro is reversed.
10
Appeal2013-00221
Application 11/693,871
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 36 and 39 as being
unpatentable over any one of Ojiro, Scott, Loomis, or Bonniot is 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11