Ex Parte Porte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2015

12307881 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2015)

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.
12/307,881 01/07/2009 Alain Porte 073070-08177 6064
79297 7590 07/23/2015
Dickinson Wright PLLC
James E. Ledbetter, Esq.
International Square
1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALAIN PORTE, JACQUES LALANE, and FABRICE GANTIE
____________

Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alain Porte et al. (Appellants) seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a),
of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter “relates to aircraft turbine engines and, more
specifically, to the air intake of a turbine engine.” Spec. 1, ll. 3–5.
Independent claim 7, shown below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

2
7. An aircraft turbine engine having a
longitudinal axis, the aircraft turbine engine
comprising;
an air intake having a leading edge and
provided with a tubular internal wall;
an external cowl surrounding said air intake,
with said tubular internal wall delimiting a
chamber closed off by an annular rear partition
wall at a side opposite to said leading edge;
a fan, supplied with air by said air intake and
enclosed by a tubular fan casing, with a rear end of
said air intake tubular internal wall and a front end
of said fan casing each being provided with
peripherally projecting collaborating connection
flanges and the flanges being joined together by at
least one first fastener, which passes through said
flanges and said first fastener has an axis
approximately parallel to said longitudinal axis of
the turbine engine, wherein:
said air intake tubular internal wall,
including the connection flange of the air intake
tubular internal wall that collaborates with the
peripherally projecting collaborating connection
flange of the front end of the fan casing, is formed
of a composite component made of a resin/fiber;
the peripherally projecting flange of said air
intake tubular internal wall is connected to said air
intake tubular internal wall to form the composite
component, with the composite component having
an approximately cavetto-shaped annular profile;
a reinforcing ring having an approximately
cavetto-shaped annular profile is secured to said
air intake tubular internal wall of the composite
component by at least one second fastener, said
second fastener having an axis approximately
orthogonal to said longitudinal axis of said turbine
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

3
engine, said reinforcing ring having said cavetto-
shaped annular profile avoiding delamination of
said composite component at an elbow of the
connection flange of the air intake tubular internal
wall, with said reinforcing ring extending to form
said annular rear partition wall; and
said first fastener passes through said
reinforcing ring and presses the reinforcing ring
against said peripherally projecting collaborating
connection flange of the composite component.

EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Brodell US 5,524,847 June 11, 1996
Schaut US 5,649,419 July 22, 1997
Porte ’170 US 6,123,170 Sept. 26, 2000
Dominguez Casado US 6,415,496 B1 July 9, 2002
Porte ’422 US 2004/0007422 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Harrison US 6,920,958 B2 July 26, 2005
Porte ’195 US 2005/0252195 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

4
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL1,2
1. Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Porte ’195, Dominguez Casado, Porte ’170, and either
Brodell or Harrison.
2. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Porte ’195, Dominguez Casado, Porte ’170, either Brodell or Harrison,
and further in view of Schaut.
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Porte ’195, Dominguez Casado, Porte ’170, either Brodell or Harrison,
and further in view of Porte ’422.

1 The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter regarded as the invention. See Final Act. 2–3 (mailed Aug. 31,
2012). In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws that rejection. See Ans. 3
(all citations to the “Answer” refer to the Substitute Answer mailed on April
19, 2013, rather than the original Answer mailed on April 17, 2013).
2 Appellants contest an objection to the title. Appeal Br. 19–21; see
Final Act. 2 (setting forth objection). Review of that objection, however, is
accomplished via petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, not by
appeal to the Board, because the objection is “unrelated to any rejection
before the Board.” See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1078 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary (see Appeal Br. 19–21) because (1) the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn (supra note 1) and (2)
Appellants have not argued the patentability of claim 7 based on its
preamble (which contains language in the current title).
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

5
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1 – The rejection of claims
7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants discuss independent claim 7 and do not argue the
patentability of dependent claims 8–10. Appeal Br. 9–17. Accordingly, we
will address only claim 7, with claims 8–10 standing or falling with claim 7.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv) (2012).
Appellants state that “even if one could conceivably combine the
individual elements disclosed in each of the cited references, one could not
have reasonably derived the structural relationship of elements as required
by claim 7.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellants similarly state as follows:
Specifically, even if it were reasonable to conclude that any or
all of the noted structural elements of Porte ’195, Dominguez
Casado, Porte ’170, Brodell and Harrison could be combined,
no combination of the disclosed structural elements suggests an
aircraft turbine engine that includes a reinforcing ring: 1)
having a cavetto-shaped annular profile; 2) secured by a second
fastener to an air intake tubular internal wall made of a
composite component; and 3) extending so that it forms an
annular rear partition wall; with a first fastener passing through
the reinforcing ring and pressing the reinforcing ring against a
peripherally projecting collaborating connection flange, in
which the flange is also formed from the composite component.
Id. at 16.3
In response, the Examiner frames Appellants’ statement quoted above
as generally asserting that “the claim[ed] invention is not obvious because
the applied prior art references are not combinable.” Ans. 8. The Examiner

3 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not explain why the enumerated
elements would not result from the combination as proposed by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 7–14.
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

6
states that the Office Action provided sufficient rationale to support the
conclusion of obviousness and that “Appellant[s] ha[ve] provided no
arguments, supported by evidence in the record, to rebut Examiner’s
motivations for combining the applied references.” Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants set forth various arguments including,
inter alia, (1) how Porte ’195 allegedly “differs from the structure of . . .
claim 7” (Reply Br. 6), (2) how Dominguez Casado allegedly suggests
“completely different structure from that stated in claim 7” (id. at 8), (3) why
it would not have been obvious to modify Porte ’195 based on Brodell or, in
the alternative, Harrison (id. at 8–9), and (4) why it would not have been
obvious to apply the second fastener taught in Porte ’170 (id. at 9–10).
Appellants state that they do not contend that “the applied prior art
references are not combinable[,]” but rather that “the evidence of record
does not disclose each and every structural component described by
independent claim 7, nor does [the applied] combination of references
suggest the structural arrangement of elements” in claim 7. Id. at 10–11.
We are not apprised of error based on the Appeal Brief because, in
that filing, Appellants merely state that the Examiner erred without
explaining why. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

7
And we will not address the assertions in Appellants’ Reply Brief for
procedural reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012) (“Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any
designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”). In that filing,
Appellants present arguments addressing the original rejection of claim 7
(see Final Act. 4–14), not, as alleged by Appellants (Reply Br. 4),
“omissions of fact” or “inaccurate and incomplete statements” in the
Answer. Appellants have not shown good cause for failing to set forth these
arguments in the Appeal Brief.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the decision to reject claim
7, and claims 8–10 falling with claim 7, as unpatentable over the combined
teachings relied upon by the Examiner.

Rejections 2 and 3 – The rejections of claims 11
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As to claim 11, Appellants contend that “[e]ven if Schaut does
disclose a reinforcing ring made of titanium, that disclosure in itself is
insufficient to overcome the deficiencies of the additionally cited
references.” Appeal Br. 17. As to claim 12, Appellants similarly contend
that “[e]ven if Porte ’422 does disclose the use of a blind fastener, that
disclosure in itself cannot be used to overcome the lack of disclosure of
Dominguez Casado, Porte ’170, Porte ’195, Brodell, or Harrison in the
alternative, as discussed above.” Id. at 18.
The Examiner responds that because claims 7–10 were properly
rejected, the alleged deficiencies relied upon by Appellants do not exist.
Appeal 2013-008328
Application 12/307,881

8
Ans. 9. Thus, according to the Examiner, the additional references applied
to reject claims 11 and 12—Schaut and Porte ’422—need not overcome any
deficiencies. Id.
We are not apprised of error based on Appellants’ arguments for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the decision to reject
claims 7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
JRG