Ex Parte SandyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 201813629012 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/629,012 11943 7590 O""Shea Getz P.C. FILING DATE 09/27/2012 04/17/2018 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 Farmington, CT 06032 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David F. Sandy 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. PA-0019489-US 8054 EXAMINER TOPOLSKI, MAGDALENA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/17/2018 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 DAVID F. SANDY Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-10, 13-20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an assembly for mounting a turbine engine case to a pylon. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An assembly for mounting a turbine engine case to a pylon, compnsmg: a beam extending axially, relative to a centerline of the turbine engine case, between a first end and a second end, wherein the beam includes a pin projecting out from the first end; and a shackle including an intermediate segment engaged rotatably to the beam by the pin, and a plurality of side segments, wherein each of the side segments has a fastener aperture and a slot, the fastener aperture extends through the respective side segment, and the slot extends laterally into the respective side segment; wherein the shackle is configured to be attached to the turbine engine case with a fastener. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Manteiga Dr on Beaufort US 6,296,203 B 1 US 2006/0000944 Al US 2008/0169378 Al REJECTIONS Oct. 2, 2001 Jan. 5,2006 July 17, 2008 Claims 1-10, 14, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaufort and Dron. Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaufort, Dron, and Manteiga. 2 Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 Claim 1 OPINION The Examiner finds that Beaufort's "assembly for mounting a turbine engine case to a pylon" teaches the majority of features of claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that "Dron teaches an assembly for mounting a turbine engine case containing a shackle (27) having a slot ... that extends laterally into the respective side segment." Id. at 3. The Examiner then determines that "[i]t would have been an obvious ... substitution of [a] functional equivalent to substitute the mounting shackle of Beaufort with a shackle having a slot, as taught by Dron, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results." Id. Appellant argues that "the double triangular brace 13 8 of Beaufort and the rear mounting beam 27 of Dron are not like, similarly situated or interchangeable parts." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant explains that this is because "the double triangular brace 13 8 of Beaufort connects the main body 130 of the engine attachment 16 to a central housing 22" while "Dron discloses arms 25 and 26 connect its rear mounting beam 27 to the turbojet 2." Id. Contrary to Appellants contention, Beaufort does not actually illustrate or explain how the double triangular brace 13 8 of Beaufort connects the main body 130 of the engine attachment 16 to the central housing 22/engine. The connecting structure between the double triangular brace 13 8 and the central housing 22 is notably absent from the figures and is only described in general terms as this is not the focus of Beaufort's invention. See e.g., Beaufort i-f 48, Figs. 1, 3. 3 Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 We agree with the Examiner that "both Dron and Beaufort are interchangeable parts in that they are both shackling elements used [to] fasten [] a turbine [to] an aircraft. Both exhibit known fastening arrangements, bolted and clevis." Ans. 2. Appellant's argument that the intermediate connections between the shackling elements and the engine are different between Dron and Beaufort does not inform us of error in the findings or determinations of the Examiner. Appellant also argues that "neither the connection member of Beaufort (i.e., the double triangular brace 138) nor Dron (i.e., the arm 25, 26) includes a slot." Appeal Br. 10. However, this argument is not directed to the rejection as the Examiner does not rely on either of these features for teaching a slot. See Final Act. 3. Arguments presented in an appeal must address the grounds of rejection set forth by the Examiner. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant further explains that Beaufort also recognizes a difference between the front mount and the rear mount. Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 10. Thus, it is argued, Dron's rear mount is not interchangeable with Beaufort's front mount. Reply Br. 2. This is not persuasive as Beaufort and Dron both teach that their inventive teachings are interchangeable between the front and rear mounts. Beaufort i-f 2; Dron i-f 4. Further, Dron expressly teaches that the front and rear mount are "globally similar." Id. i-f 34. Thus, Appellant has not convincingly shown that Beaufort's or Dron's teachings are exclusive to the front or rear mount. Appellant also argues that "a person of skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success in combining the teaching of Beaufort and Dron." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant explains that this is because "neither Dron 4 Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 nor Beaufort and, thus, a combination thereof teaches or suggests a flanged groove connection can be implemented with two elements such as the two triangular braces 138 of Beaufort." Id. Appellant also states that "[t]here is also no teaching or suggestion [of] how to keep the braces of Beaufort together if modified as alleged in the Office Action." Appeal Br. 10. However, the level of detail Appellant requests the prior art provide is not required. Appellant does not assert or offer evidence that the combination of Beaufort and Dron is beyond the skill of one of skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellant also argues that one of skill in the art would not consider the rear mounting beam 27 of Dron to be a shackle. Appeal Br. 11. However, Appellant previously admitted that "Dron teaches using a shackle type connection on its rear mounting beam 27." Id. at 10. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Claim 5 Dependent claim 5 adds "wherein the slots are defined between the first and second plates." Appellant argues that "the alleged combination of Beaufort and Dron does not teach or suggest [this] feature." Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that neither reference teaches this feature, but does not address what is taught or suggested by the combination. See id. Appellant does not assert or offer evidence that the combination of Beaufort and Dron (such as to provide "a flanged groove connection ... 5 Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 implemented with two elements") is beyond the ability of one of skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Claim 6 Dependent claim 6 adds "wherein the slot in each of the side segments communicates laterally into the first plate, and each of the side segments further has a second slot that communicates laterally into the second plate." Appellant argues that "the alleged combination of Beaufort and Dron does not teach or suggest [this] feature." Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that neither reference teaches this feature, but does not address what is taught or suggested by the combination. See id. at 12-13. Appellant does not assert or offer evidence that the combination of Beaufort and Dron (such as to provide "a flanged groove connection ... implemented with two elements") is beyond the ability of one of skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. Claims 2-4, 7-10, 13-20, and 22 Appellant relies on the arguments over claim 1 for the patentability of claims 2--4, 7-10, 13-20, and 22. Appeal Br. 11-15. 6 Appeal2017-003440 Application 13/629,012 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10, 13-20, and 22 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation