Ex Parte McCune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

13087446 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/087,446 04/15/2011 Michael E. McCune
54549 7590 02/11/2016
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.
PA16507U;67097-1430PUS1 6254
EXAMINER
RNERA, CARLOS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAELE. MCCUNE and BRIAN P. CIGAL
Appeal 2014-000453 1,2
Application 13/087,446
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, 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 rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to a gas turbine
engine, and[,] in particular, to a coupling shaft." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 9, and
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Apr. 15,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed June 19, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 2, 2013), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed Aug. 2, 2013).
2 "The real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation." Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000453
Application 13/087,446
16 are the only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce below claim 1
as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A coupling shaft assembly for a gas turbine engme
compnsmg:
a forward coupling shaft section includes a forward interface
spline and a forward mid shaft interface spline; and
an aft coupling shaft section includes an aft mid shaft interface
spline and an aft interface spline, said aft mid shaft interface
spline engageable with said forward mid shaft interface spline.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) as anticipated by Sheridan
(US 2010/0150702 Al, pub. June 17, 2010) ("Sheridan '702").
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sheridan '702.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sheridan '702 and Young (US 3,915,521, iss. Oct. 28,
1975).
See Answer 4--9.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 depend, requires "[an]
aft mid shaft interface spline [of an aft coupling shaft] engageable with [a]
forward mid shaft interface spline [of a forward coupling shaft]." Appeal
Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not determine that Sheridan '702
shows such a spline connection between an aft coupling shaft and a forward
2
Appeal2014-000453
Application 13/087,446
coupling shaft. See Answer 5, 9-10. Nonetheless, the Examiner concludes
that Sheridan '702 anticipates the claim limitation because although
Sheridan '702 shows a bolted connection, Sheridan '702 states that "in
alternate embodiments, the shaft coupling ... may be configured as a
splined connection." Id. at 5, citing Sheridan '702 i-f 23.
Appellants argue that even if one interprets the cited portion of
Sheridan '702 as referring to the bolted connection between an aft and a
forward coupling shaft, the rejection is improper because Sheridan '702 does
not enable a splined connection. See Appeal Br. 3-5 ("[R]eplacing the
[bolted] connection ... with a splined connection is not sufficiently
disclosed or enabled." Id. at 5). More specifically, Appellants argue
the bolted connection disclosed in Sheridan ['702] includes three
elements joined at a common interface. The connection includes
the flange 166 of the hub 154, a[ n] LPC hub flange ... that is not
numbered, and a flange of a shaft member.
A splined connection is provided between two mating
parts[,] and[,] therefore[,] attaching three elements at one point,
as is disclosed in Sheridan ['702], is not a simply [sic]
substitution of parts to a splined connection. Instead such a
modification would require a substantial redesign of the common
interface between the three disclosed elements that is neither
taught nor suggested by Sheridan.
Id. at 4--5. Appellants' technical reasoning appear to be reasonable, and,
thus, we agree with Appellants that Sheridan does not appear to enable
sufficiently the replacement of a bolted connection (that connects three
elements) with a spline connection (that may not be capable of connecting
three elements). Therefore, Sheridan cannot anticipate claim 1. (A patent
claim "cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the allegedly
anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled." Elan Pharm.,
3
Appeal2014-000453
Application 13/087,446
Inc. v. Mayo Found.for Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 2003).)
In response to Appellants, the Examiner determines that Appellants
are incorrect that Sheridan '702 fails to enable a spline connection, because
the connection of three elements via a spline "is known in the art as
evidenced by Sheridan 5,433,674. Sheridan '674 teaches splined
connection 30 using three elements (shaft 32, shaft 24[,] and the
compressor's shaft) (see [F]ig. 2)." Answer 10. Based on our review of
Sheridan '674, however, we find that while the reference discloses spline
connection 30 between shaft 32 and shaft 24, Sheridan '674 does not appear
to use connection 30 to connect to a third shaft as stated by the Examiner.
See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner does not reference any other portion of
Sheridan '674 that illustrates or describes three components connected by a
spline connection. Thus, the Examiner fails to establish that Sheridan '674
provides evidence sufficient to support the Examiner's conclusion that
Sheridan '702 enables a spline connection to connect three components.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-
8. Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations, and, thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of the independent claims 9 and 16, or the rejections
of claims 10-15and17-19 depending from claims 9 and 16, respectively,
for the same reasons we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-000453
Application 13/087,446
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) and§ 103(a).
REVERSED
5