Ex Parte Sandy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2018

13629012 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

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