Ex Parte Parnin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201713484698 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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. 13/484,698 05/31/2012 Francis Parnin 62139US01; 9990 67097-1894PUS1 54549 7590 11/15/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER IBRONI, STEFAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2017 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 FRANCIS PARNIN and PAUL H. DOLMAN Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Francis Pamin and Paul H. Dolman (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A lubrication system for a gear system comprising: an inlet passage; an auxiliary pump including an inlet receiving lubricant from the inlet passage and an outlet in communication with an auxiliary passage; a bearing passage in communication with the auxiliary passage for communicating lubricant to a bearing of the gear system; and a reservoir disposed within the auxiliary passage after the outlet of the auxiliary pump and before the bearing passage, wherein the reservoir comprises a volume over a fixed length greater than a volume of the auxiliary passage over a length equal to that of the reservoir. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Doell Sheridan Sheridan US 4,511,016 Apr. 16, 1985 US 2008/0116009 A1 May 22, 2008 US 2010/0212281 A1 Aug. 26, 2010 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—5 and 7—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan ’009 and Doell. II. Claims 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan ’281 and Doell. 2 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 1—3, 5, 7—11, 13, and 14 Appellants argue claims 1—3, 5, 7—11, 13, and 14 together. See Appeal Br. 4—7. We select claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7—11, 13, and 14 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Sheridan ’009 and Doell disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Sheridan ’009 discloses a lubrication system comprising an auxiliary pump 50 and auxiliary passage 66 corresponding to the claimed reservoir. Id. (citing Sheridan ’009, Fig. 4).1 The Examiner acknowledges that Sheridan ’009 does not disclose that the reservoir comprises a volume over a fixed length greater than a volume of the auxiliary passage over a length equal to that of the reservoir. Id. The Examiner finds that Doell discloses an oil-air separator 6 corresponding to the reservoir comprising a volume over a fixed length greater than a volume of the auxiliary passage over a length equal to that of the reservoir, as claimed. Id. (citing Doell, Fig. 1; col. 3,11. 41^44). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Sheridan ’009 by adding an oil-air separator, as taught by Doell, to reduce air in the lubricant and ensure efficient lubrication of gas turbine 1 We note that in the Response to Arguments section of the Final Action, the Examiner points out that a “reservoir” is defined as “[a] supply or source of something” or “[a] receptacle or part of a machine designed to hold fluid.” Final Act. 2 (citing oxforddictionaries.com). 3 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 bearings. Id. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Doell discloses an accumulator 7 corresponding to the reservoir comprising a volume over a fixed length greater than a volume of the auxiliary passage over a length equal to that of the reservoir, as claimed. Id. (citing Doell, Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the system of Sheridan ’009 by adding an accumulator, as taught by Doell, to dampen pressure peaks or irregularities that occur during critical flight phases as a result of oil displacement in the main lubricating circuit. Id. (citing Doell, col. 3,11. 25— 28). Appellants contend that Sheridan ’009 does not disclose a reservoir positioned after an auxiliary pump because one skilled in the art would not understand the auxiliary passage 66 is a reservoir. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1—2. In support, Appellants argue that auxiliary passage 66 provides a conduit for fluid flow between features of the lubricant system instead of providing fluid storage. Id. Appellants further contend that Doell also does not disclose a reservoir positioned after an auxiliary pump because accumulator 7 is positioned before oil pressure pump 1. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. Although we agree with Appellants that an ordinary artisan would not consider the auxiliary passage 66 of Sheridan ’009 as a reservoir, Appellants do not apprise us of error regarding the Examiner’s alternative rejection. The Examiner explains that even if auxiliary passage 66 is not considered a reservoir, Doelfs oil-air separator 6 or accumulator 7 corresponds to the claimed reservoir. Ans. 2. The Examiner further explains that accumulator 7 is positioned after scavenging pump 4 which the Examiner considers as an 4 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 auxiliary pump.2 Id. Appellants do not persuasively explain why Doell’s scavenging pump 4 cannot correspond to the claimed auxiliary pump. See Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Appellants contend Doell does not disclose a reservoir positioned after an auxiliary pump because one skilled in the art would not understand the oil-air separator 6 to be regarded as any type of storage tank. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. The Specification does not appear to define “reservoir.” As noted supra, the Examiner points out that a “reservoir” is defined as “[a] supply or source of something” or “[a] receptacle or part of a machine designed to hold fluid.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner further points out that Appellants provided a definition of “hold” as “to enclose and keep in a container or within bound.” Ans. 2 (citing definition 6a in Exhibit A of Appellants’ After-Final Response mailed Feb. 19, 2016). We thus construe the term “reservoir” as a receptacle that encloses fluid. Further, claim 1 does not recite a “storage tank” nor a reservoir holding a fluid for any specified amount of time. We note that claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites “the reservoir comprises a volume 2 We note that the Examiner finds that in a closed loop, any element can be considered as positioned after or before another element, based on the relative starting point one chooses in the circuit. See Ans. 2. Appellants argue that this finding is erroneous. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants are correct; however, this is not indicative of error. As discussed supra, regardless of this finding concerning where one chooses a starting point in the circuit, the Examiner finds that accumulator 7 is positioned after scavenging pump 4 as shown in Doell’s Figure 1—a finding that Appellants do not dispute. 5 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 determined to hold a quantity of lubricant required for operation of the gear system for a desired time.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). According to the doctrine of claim differentiation ‘“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.’” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Applying claim differentiation, the recitation in claim 7 raises a presumption that the reservoir in claim 1 does not require “a volume determined to hold a quantity of lubricant required for operation of the gear system for a desired time.” The Examiner explains that the oil-air separator 6 acts as a reservoir due to its larger volume compared to a conduit of the same length. Ans. 2. Appellants do not persuasively explain why Doell’s oil-air separator 6 cannot be considered a reservoir as we construe the term, and further in light of the doctrine of claim differentiation. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Appellants further contend that there is no reason to add Doell’s accumulator 7 to the system of Sheridan ’009. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. In support, Appellants argue that Doell’s accumulator 7 is positioned before oil pressure pump 1 and Sheridan ’009 already provides a reservoir positioned before an auxiliary pump. Appeal Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 2. However, as noted supra, the Examiner finds that Doell teaches an accumulator 7 positioned after scavenging pump 4 (which the Examiner identifies as corresponding to the claimed auxiliary pump). Appellants do not dispute this finding. Thus, adding an accumulator 7 at a position after Sheridan ’009’s auxiliary pump is not duplicative because Sheridan’s 6 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 auxiliary reservoir 48 is positioned before the auxiliary pump 50. See Sheridan ’009, Fig. 4.3 Appellants do not persuasively explain why the Examiner’s articulated reason—to dampen pressure peaks—lacks rational underpinning. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7—11, 13, and 14, which fall therewith, as unpatentable over Sheridan ’009 and Doell. Claims 4 and 12 Claim 4 indirectly depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the reservoir includes a first reservoir disposed between the auxiliary pump and the valve and a second reservoir disposed between the valve and the bearing passage.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Claim 12 indirectly depends from claim 9, and recites a similar limitation. Id. at 12 (Claims App.). Appellants contend that Sheridan ’009 discloses passages instead of the recited reservoir. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue that there is no reason to modify the system of Sheridan ’009 to include Doell’s accumulator 7. Id. These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra. Appellants also contend that “the proposed combination of Sheridan [’009] and D[oe]ll neither discloses nor teaches the features recited in 3 In the Answer the Examiner proffers additional reasoning in support of the proposed modification based on the concept of redundancy in engineering. However, we need not determine if this additional reasoning has rationale underpinnings, as this reasoning is not required to support the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. 7 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 claim[s] 4 and 12,” and that Doell’s accumulator 7 “is not provided in the position recited in claims 4 and 12.” Id. To the extent that Appellants are arguing the combination of Sheridan ’009 and Doell does not teach a first reservoir positioned between an auxiliary pump and a valve and a second reservoir positioned between a valve and a bearing passage as claimed, the Examiner explains that Doell’s oil-air separator 6 is positioned between scavenging pump 4 and check valve 21, and accumulator 7 is positioned between check valve 21 and conduit 11 which corresponds to a bearing passage. See Ans. 3. Appellants do not persuasively explain why Doell’s oil-air separator 6 and accumulator 7 are not in the particular positions as found by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 12 as unpatentable over Sheridan ’009 and Doell. Rejection II Claims 15—17 and 19 Appellants argue claims 15—17 and 19 together. See Appeal Br. 7—8. We select independent claim 15 as the representative claim, and claims 16, 17, and 19 stand or fall with claim 15. This rejection relies on essentially the same findings pertaining to Doell discussed supra, but relies on Sheridan ’281 rather than Sheridan ’009 for the limitations pertaining to the auxiliary pump and the reservoir, among other things. See Final Act. 6—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Sheridan ’281 discloses a gas turbine engine comprising an auxiliary pump 70 and auxiliary supply passage 72 corresponding to the claimed reservoir. 8 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 Id. at 6 (citing Sheridan ’281, Fig. 2).4 Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the gas turbine engine of Sheridan ’281 for the same reasons as discussed in Rejection I. Appellants contend that Sheridan ’281 suffers from the same deficiencies as Sheridan ’009 in that Sheridan ’281 does not disclose a reservoir positioned after an auxiliary pump. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 1. In support, Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not understand the auxiliary supply passage 72 is a reservoir because the auxiliary supply passage 72 does not hold lubricant in one place. Id. Appellants further contend that there is no reason to add Doell’s accumulator 7 to the system of Sheridan ’281 because Sheridan ’281 already provides a collection reservoir 92. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. In other words, Appellants essentially repeat the same arguments as for Rejection I. Id. These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15, and claims 16, 17, and 19, which fall therewith as unpatentable over Sheridan ’281 andDoell. Claim 18 Claim 18 recites a similar limitation as in claims 4 and 12. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appellants contend that the combination of Sheridan ’281 and Doell is deficient for the same reasons as argued with respect to claims 4 and 12. See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. These arguments are 4 As noted supra that the Examiner points out that a “reservoir” is defined as “[a] supply or source of something” or “[a] receptacle or part of a machine designed to hold fluid.” Final Act. 2 (citing oxforddictionaries.com). 9 Appeal 2017-000008 Application 13/484,698 unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 18 as unpatentable over Sheridan ’281 and Doell. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5 and 7—19 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation