Ex Parte Olson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201814056695 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/056,695 50811 7590 O""Shea Getz P.C. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 10/17/2013 Timothy Olson 05/31/2018 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. 1349-25188AB 6898 EXAMINER 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 DODDS, scoTT Farmington, CT 06032 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): uspto@osheagetz.com shenry@osheagetz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY OLSON, JAY COBIA, and THOMAS SOMMER Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejections of claims 1-9, 13-20, and 24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to protective systems for aircraft propulsion system components (Spec. i-f 1 ). In particular, the claimed subject 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies Corp. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 matter is drawn to methods for manufacturing a thrust reverser inner fixed structure. Id. at Abstract. Claims 1, 15, and 17 are illustrative: 1. A method for providing a thrust reverser inner fixed structure, the method comprising: providing an acoustic inner barrel that includes a first cellular core; providing a bifurcation panel that includes a second cellular core; and arranging a comer fitting between and attaching the comer fitting to the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; wherein the arranging comprises inserting a portion of the corner fitting into a channel in the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; and inserting a portion of the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel into a channel in the corner fitting; wherein the attaching comprises attaching one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel to the comer fitting with an overlap joint, and an exterior surface of the comer fitting is flush with an exterior surface of an exterior skin included in the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; and wherein the comer fitting forms a comer between the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel. 15. A method for providing a thrust reverser inner fixed structure, the method comprising: forming an acoustic inner barrel that includes a first cellular core; forming a bifurcation panel that includes a second cellular core; 2 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 forming a comer fitting independent of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; and connecting the acoustic inner barrel to the bifurcation panel with the comer fitting; wherein the connecting comprises connecting one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel to the corner fitting with an overlap joint, an exterior surface of the corner fitting is flush with an exterior surface of an exterior skin included in the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel, and the exterior skin overlaps and is bonded to a portion of the corner fitting; and wherein the comer fitting forms a comer between the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel. 17. A method for providing a thrust reverser inner fixed structure, the method comprising: arranging a comer fitting between an acoustic inner barrel with a first cellular core and a bifurcation panel with a second cellular core; and attaching the comer fitting to the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; wherein the corner fitting includes first and second flanges, and both of the first and the second flanges project into respective apertures in one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel at an overlap joint between the corner fitting and the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel; and wherein the comer fitting forms a comer between the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel. (Appeal Br. 20, 22, 23 (Claims App.) (emphasis added)). Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 5-9, 13-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Benedetti et al. (US 2014/0077031 Al, 3 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 published Mar. 20, 2014, "Benedetti") in view of Judge (US 2010/0143143 Al, published June 10, 2010, "Judge"). 2 2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Benedetti in view of Judge, and further in view of Johnson (US 2004/0163888 Al, published Aug. 26, 2004, "Johnson"). 3. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Benedetti in view of Judge, and further in view of Seiwert (US 3,572,971, issued Mar. 3, 1971, "Seiwert") and Binks et al. (US 2010/0260602 Al, published Oct. 14, 2010, "Binks"). Appellants' arguments focus solely on independent claims 1, 15, and 17 (Appeal Br. 9-18; Reply Br. 2-5). We select claims 1, 15, and 17 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, claims 2-9, 13, 14, 16, 18-20, and 24 will stand or fall with each of their respective independent claims. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Benedetti teaches away from Judge's tongue in groove joint because connecting Benedetti's radiused portions 172, 174 to adjacent pieces through Judge's joint "would negate both of the stated objectives of Benedetti" (Appeal Br. 10). According to Appellants, modifying Judge's male portion 40 to extend into the bifurcation wall portion 166, 168 or the barrel portion 170 will both ( 1) increase the weight of 2 The Examiner's statement of the rejection included claims 10-12 (Final Act. 8; Ans. 3). However, Appellants canceled these claims by Amendment (filed June 16, 2016) and these claims are no longer pending (Final Act. 1). Accordingly, we view the Examiner's inclusion of claims 10-12 in Rejection I as a clerical error. 4 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 the fan duct components due to the addition of the weight of the male portion 40, as well as (2) decrease the wetted area that can be acoustically treated due to the male portion 40 extending into the portion 166, 168 or 170. Id. (emphasis added); see also Benedetti Figs. 7, 8; Judge Fig. 7. Appellants further argue that the Examiner's proposed modification would have required Benedetti's hollow cavity "to be completely filled with a tongue in order to provide the alleged tongue and groove joint," thereby increasing the weight of the connected parts (Reply Br. 2). Benedetti's Figure 15, which illustrates an enlarged view of an integral ribbed structure joined to the face sheets of the lower bifurcation wall portion, is reproduced below. 232 242 222 2~ FIG. 15 Figure 15 illustrates features of lower radiused portion 174, including edge portions 244 of integral ribbed structure 240, which may be configured with a pair of lips 246 for joining with bifurcation wall portion 168. 5 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. First, Benedetti' s hollow cavity is not required as a feature of radiused portion 174. Rather, the hollow cavity is within the optional integral ribbed structure 240. See Benedetti i-f 56 (describing integral ribbed structure 240 as "an alternative embodiment of the inner wall panel wherein the ... lower radiused portion 174 may be formed as an integral ribbed structure 240") (emphasis added); id. at Fig. 7. Thus, the Examiner's proposed modification would not have required completely filling a hollow cavity, which is optional, with the added weight of a tongue. Second, we agree with the Examiner that any added weight contributed by Judge's male portion would have been nullified by the weight decrease provided by a corresponding female portion of the same size (Ans. 8). Thus, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion that the modified "radius portion and the entire system would have the exact same weight, but simply a different shape at their joined edges." Id. In connection with Appellants' argument that the Examiner's modification would have decreased Benedetti' s desired wetted area that can be acoustically treated, Appellants further argue that if Benedetti's joint "was modified to include such a male protrusion 40 ... , that protrusion would need to project a relatively large distance into the core 22 of the bifurcation wall portion 168 of Benedetti" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants assert that it is "generally known in the art [that] cavities within a core of an acoustic panel provide resonating chambers for sound attenuation." Id. According to Appellants, the length of Judge's male portion 40, which "is at least two times greater than its thickness," would have decreased the size of 6 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 the core, thereby decreasing the area of Benedetti's bifurcation wall 168 which can be used for sound attenuation. Id. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellants do not identify any evidence that Benedetti is concerned with increasing the sound attenuating properties of core 22 within bifurcation wall portion 168. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). In our view, Benedetti's objectives include "increasing the amount of fan duct wetted surface area that can be acoustically treated" (Benedetti i-f 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at i-f 4 (disclosing that "the noise output of a gas turbine engine may be reduced by acoustically treating the wetted surface area of the fan duct that is exposed to the airflow") (emphasis added)). As the Examiner reasoned, although male portion 40 would have created additional surface area at the joint interface, this would have been eliminated once male portion 40 enters groove 44 (Ans. 9; see also Judge Fig. 7). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the incorporation of Judge's tongue in groove joint to connect Benedetti' s radiused portions to either bifurcation wall portion or barrel portion 170 would have no effect on the wetted or exterior surface area. Appellants argue that "Benedetti teaches away from utilizing a seamed splice joint as taught in Judge ... because such a joint does NOT provide a seamless interconnection as required by Benedetti" (Appeal Br. 11). Appellants further argue that Benedetti's "inventive seamless configuration replaces and obviates the need for a mechanical joint," such as Judge's tongue in groove joint. Id. (citing Benedetti i-fi-135, 38, 39, 45). We are unpersuaded by these arguments. 7 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 First, Appellants' arguments distinguishing Benedetti' s seamless and Judge's seamed joints are premised on bodily incorporation and are not focused on the Examiner's reason for combining the cited art. It is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask "whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole." In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference."). In this instance, there is no dispute that Benedetti teaches brazing and welding for seamlessly interconnecting gas turbine engine parts (Appeal Br. 10-11; Ans. 3--4). Thus, Appellants' arguments have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's findings that Benedetti' s brazing and welding may be used to produce a seamless interconnection when using Judge's tongue in groove joint (Ans. 3--4, 10). Second, Appellants' characterization of Benedetti' s teachings regarding mechanical joints is incorrect. Benedetti merely teaches that mechanical joints are obviated between "a juncture of the barrel portion 170 with the upper and lower bifurcation wall portions 166, 168" (Benedetti i-f 35; see also Ans. 10). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Benedetti merely teaches that no mechanical joints are needed between these specific parts (Ans. 10; see, e.g., barrel portion 170 and upper bifurcation wall portion 166 are not connected to each other, but they are each connected to radius portion 172 (Benedetti Fig. 5)). Appellants argue that Judge merely "teaches mating a single male protrusion 40 of a first segment with a single female recess 44 of a second 8 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 segment at a joint" (Appeal Br. 11 (citing Judge Fig. 7)). Appellants further argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art "that an additional male protrusion can be included with the second segment and an additional female recess can be included with the first segment to receive the additional male protrusion" as required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11 ). Appellants assert that claim 1 recites 'inserting a portion of the corner fitting into a channel in the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel' and 'inserting a portion of the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel into a channel in the corner fitting'. Thus, [] 'the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel' which extends into a channel of the comer fitting is the same 'the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel' into which the comer fitting extends into. (Reply Br. 3). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 is not limited to embodiments that possess such a dual-joint arrangement. Rather, the Specification provides that [i]n any of the above embodiments, a portion of the comer fitting may be inserted into a channel in the acoustic inner barrel. A portion of the comer fitting may also or alternatively be inserted into a channel in the bifurcation panel. A portion of the acoustic inner barrel may also or alternatively be inserted into a channel in the comer fitting. A portion of the bifurcation panel may also or alternatively be inserted into a channel in the comer fitting. (Spec. i-f 22) (emphasis added). This disclosure does not require that "the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel" which extends into a channel of the comer fitting is the same as "the one of the acoustic inner barrel and the bifurcation panel" into which the comer fitting extends 9 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 into. Thus, Appellants argue limitations not found in claim 1. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that "[i]f it is obvious to include a tongue in groovejointfor one of these joints, ... it clearly would have also been obvious to incorporate a tongue in groove in the other joint for the same reasons" (Ans. 12) (emphasis added). Appellants argue, with respect to claim 15, that "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion ... of overlapping and bonding a skin of an acoustic inner barrel or a bifurcation panel to a portion of a comer fitting" (Appeal Br. 14). The Examiner, however, finds that Benedetti's face sheets disclose or suggest the claimed bonding skin, which extends over the radiused portion and the adjacent barrel (Ans. 12 (citing Benedetti i-f 46; Figs. 7, 8)). In response, Appellants argue that Benedetti's Figure 8 clearly shows that "face sheets 232 and 236 of the radiused portion 172 are different sheets than those of the barrel portion 170 and those of the inner wall panel 162; note, the split lines between the face sheets at the interface between the elements 172, 162 and 170" (Reply Br. 4). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Benedetti describes face sheets 232, 236 as a metallic material covering "a one-piece unitary structure 164" comprising radiused portions 172, 174, bifurcation wall portions 166, 168, and barrel portion 170 (Benedetti i-f 44, Fig. 7). We note the absence of split lines between the face sheets 232, 236 at the interface between the radiused portions and either the adjacent barrel or the bifurcation wall portions. Id. at Fig. 7. Therefore, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Benedetti describes or teaches overlapping and bonding a skin of an acoustic inner 10 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 barrel or a bifurcation panel to a portion of a comer fitting, as required in claim 15. With regard to claim 17, Appellants reiterate that Judge merely "teaches mating a single male protrusion 40 of a first segment with a single female recess 44 of a second segment at a joint" (Appeal Br. 17 (citing Judge Fig. 7)). Appellants argue that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest "that an additional male protrusion can be included with the first segment and an additional female recess can be included with the second segment to receive the additional male protrusion." Id. Appellants further argue that "the interpretation being alleged by the Examiner's Answer is not consistent with the [S]pecification of the present application" (Reply Br. 4). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Specification describes that "[i]n any of the above embodiments, the comer fitting may include a first set of flanges that form a first channel, and/or a second set of flanges that form a second channel" (Spec. i-f 20). Therefore, when claim 17 is read in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that the claim requires that "the groove component has two flanges, i.e.[,] the two side portions forming the groove and the tongue portion has two apertures, i.e.[,] the cutout areas on either side of the male member" (Ans. 12). 3 3 The Examiner concludes that Figure 12 of the Specification depicts the claimed "apertures" (Ans. 12-13). Appellants, however, correctly note that Figure 12 does not include flanges 613, 614 and 615, 616, which form channels 618 and 620, respectively. See Spec. Fig. 11. We, however, view the Examiner's interpretation of Figure 12 as harmless error because the obviousness determination of claim 17 is not based on this interpretation. See Ans. 3-5. 11 Appeal2017-007413 Application 14/056,695 Based on the applied prior art's teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the incorporation of Judge's tongue in groove joints on either side of Benedetti's radiused portion, each joint with the requisite flanges, would have predictably enhanced the stability of an interconnected bifurcation wall portion, radiused portion, and barrel portion. See id. at 4. Thus, Appellants' arguments have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's determination that Judge would have provided sufficient reason for the ordinary skilled artisan to incorporate Judge's tongue in groove joints in Benedetti's interconnecting gas turbine engine parts. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's Rejections I-III under§ 103 of claims 1-9, 13-20, and 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner's decision 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). ORDER AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation