Ex Parte McCune et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201713428491 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017) 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. 13/428,491 03/23/2012 Michael E. McCune 57039US02; 7267 67097-1379US2 54549 7590 11/17/2017 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 11/17/2017 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 MICHAEL E. McCUNE, WILLIAM G. SHERIDAN, and LAWRENCE E. PORTLOCK Appeal 2017-002092 Application 13/428,4911 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—11 and 24—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the invention relates “to a lubricating system for a planetary gear train.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-002092 Application 13/428,491 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan, a first compressor stage and a second compressor stage; a first turbine stage and a second turbine stage, and wherein said first turbine stage drives said second compressor stage as a high spool, and wherein said second turbine stage drives said first compressor stage as part of a low spool; a gear train driving said fan with said low spool, and such that said fan and said first compressor stage rotate in the same direction, and wherein said high spool operates at higher pressures than said low spool; a first spray bar providing lubrication to said gear train; and a second spray bar extending from said first spray bar and providing lubrication to said gear train. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2 The Examiner rejects claims 1—11 and 24—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sheridan (US 8,205,432 B2, iss. June 26, 2012) (“Sheridan ’432”). 2 The Examiner rejected “[cjlaim 27 ... as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter . . . [that Appellants] regard[] as the invention. Claim 27 recites the limitation ‘said bearing.’ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. ‘[S]aid bearing’ appears to an error for —a bearing—.” Final Action 3. In response, Appellants filed an Amendment, revising claim 27 to recite “a bearing.” Amendment filed on Jan. 11, 2016, 7. The Examiner entered the amendment to claim 27. Advisory Action 1. Thus, notwithstanding the typographical error in claim 27 as set forth in the Appeal Briefs Claims Appendix, we understand claim 27 to recite “a bearing,” and we understand claim 27’s indefmiteness rejection to be overcome and not before us on appeal. Thus, we treat as inadvertent the Examiner’s failure to indicate the rejection’s withdrawal. 2 Appeal 2017-002092 Application 13/428,491 The Examiner rejects claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan ’432. The Examiner rejects claims 1—11 and 24—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan ’432 and Sheridan (US 2010/0212281 Al, pub. Aug. 26, 2010). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1, from which each of the remaining claims depends, recites “a first spray bar providing lubrication to said gear train; and a second spray bar extending from said first spray bar and providing lubrication to said gear train.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Each of the Examiner’s rejections relies on a finding that Sheridan ’432’s radially extending passage 110 and oil baffles 111 teach the claimed second spray bar. See, e.g., Final Action 4, 8—9. Appellants argue that the rejections are in error because, although “[t]he Examiner points to elements 110 and 111 from Sheridan ’432 as reading on the claimed second spray bar . . ., neither of 110 and 111 is a spray bar.” Appeal Br. 3. More specifically, Appellants argue that “[n]either the passage 110 nor the baffle 111 sprays anything.” Id. at 4. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that “Sheridan ’432 teaches a bearing 86 having a passage 110 (Fig[ures] 2 and 3) which permit[s] the lubricating oil to enter the interfaces between planet gears 82 (col. 5[,] 11. 60—65)[,] reading on [the] limitation ‘spray bar.’” Answer 2. Based on our review, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Sheridan ’432’s radially extending passage 110 and oil baffles 111 teach the claimed second spray bar. 3 Appeal 2017-002092 Application 13/428,491 Although we do not determine precisely what structure is required to teach the claimed second spray bar, we note that the Examiner fails to find that either passage 110 or oil baffles 111 “spray[s]” lubrication, and fails to support adequately any finding that either passage 110 or oil baffles 111 constitutes a “bar.” Conversely, the Examiner does not establish that because Sheridan ’432 ’s radially extending passage 110 and oil baffles 111 provide lubrication, this structure teaches the claimed second spray bar. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain either the anticipation or obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Further, inasmuch as each of the remaining claims depends from claim 1, and the Examiner does not establish that any other reference or an obvious variation of Sheridan ’432 remedies the deficiency in claim l’s rejections, by teaching the claimed second spray bar, we do not sustain any rejection of dependent claims 2—11 and 24—30. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1—11 and 24—30. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation