Ex Parte Suciu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613417615 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) 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. 13/417,615 03/12/2012 Gabriel L. Suciu PA0020396U-U73.12-0787KL 8208 12208 7590 12/30/2016 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 EXAMINER YOO, JUN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): U S PatDocket @ kinney. com amkoenck @ kinney. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU, IOANNIS ALVANOS, and BRIAN D. MERRY Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,6151 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Gabriel L. Suciu et al (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—6 and 8—14 as unpatentable over Chee (US 4,603,822, iss. Aug. 5, 1986) and Kaufhold (US 3,727,862, iss. Apr. 17, 1973) and of claims 16 and 18— 20 as unpatentable over Chee and Diochon (US 7,677,493 B2, iss. Mar. 16, 2010).3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Br. 2. 2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in the Final Action, dated February 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”). 3 Claims 7, 15, and 17 were canceled. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A method of mounting a gas turbine engine having an engine axis to a pylon, the method comprising: attaching a mount bracket to a turbine exhaust case of the gas turbine engine; and attaching a distal end of the mount bracket to the pylon with a single pin; wherein the distal end of the mount bracket contains a spherical bearing configured for reception of the single pin, and allows for rotation of the mount bracket with respect to the pylon about an axis that is perpendicular to the engine axis. ANALYSIS Obviousness of Claims 1—6 and 8—14 over Chee and Kaufhold Appellants argue claims 1—6 and 8—14 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as obvious over Chee and Kaufhold. See Br. 6—7. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that “Chee teaches a method of mounting a gas turbine engine having an engine axis to a pylon,” that includes, inter alia, "attaching a distal end of [a] mount bracket to the pylon with a single pin,” and looks to Kaufhold for teaching a mount bracket with a distal end that “contains a spherical bearing configured for reception of the single pin,” so that when “applied to the mount bracket of Chee, it will allow 2 Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 for a rotation of the mount bracket about an axis that is perpendicular to the engine axis,” as recited by claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. From the foregoing, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to include the “spherical bearing of Kaufhold ... at the distal end of the mount bracket of Chee, so that, the extra freedom of movements by the spherical bearing reduces [the] amount of the stress applied at the joint.” Id. at 3. The Examiner also observes that Kaufhold teaches that the spherical bearing allows “for rotation of the mount bracket with respect to the pylon.” Id. at 8. Appellants take issue with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Final Action while acknowledging that Kaufhold “teaches a spherical bearing, but [arguing that] the bearing is not attached to the mounting bracket as required by claims 1 and 8,” because “[t]he bearing is attached to the structure to which the mounting bracket is attached.” Br. 6. Thus Appellants contend that the “claims require that the bearing be on the mounting bracket,” as that “arrangement is necessary for a single pin connection to the bracket.” Id. However, Appellants are simply attacking Kaufhold in isolation for lacking support for findings not relied upon by the Examiner, rather than addressing the Examiner’s combination of Chee and Kaufhold. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, Kaufhold was cited “to modify the bracket of Chee such that the bearing [of Kaufhold] is attached to the bracket of Chee (NOT the structure of Kaufhold . . .) and is configured for reception of the single pin of Chee.” Ans. 8—9 (citing Chee, col. 4,11. 38-40). 3 Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 The Examiner also explains that Fig. 4 of Chee and Fig. 2c of Kaufhold . . . show joints between a mount bracket and a structure which are very similar to each other except for the fact that in Chee, the mount bracket flange (25) is between the two outer structure flanges (26a & 26b or 28a & 28b) whereas in Kaufhold . . ., the structure flange (5d) is between the two outer mount bracket flanges (5a and 5b). Id. at 9. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious ... to apply [the] spherical bearing of Kaufhold .. . within the distal end of the mounting bracket of Chee in order to maintain an overall configuration of the joint itself.” Id. We agree, also noting that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants have not apprised us that the Examiner’s rationale is in error. Appellants rephrase the aforementioned contention in also arguing that Kaufhold “teaches away from independent claims 1 and 8,” by teaching “that the mounting bracket is attached to the nacelle, and not the turbine case as required by the claims,” and also “teaches away from the claim limitation of a spherical bearing present in the mounting bracket to allow for rotation of the mounting bracket about an axis of the support post that is perpendicular to an engine axis.” Br. 6—7 (emphasis added). However, a reference does not teach away if it does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed subject matter. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A differing placement of the mounting bracket does not amount to disclosure that criticizes, discredits, or discourages investigation into the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, we 4 Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 agree with the Examiner that Kaufhold was only cited for teaching a mounting bracket with “a spherical bearing and not the connection between bracket and nacelle.” Ans. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 8—14 over Chee and Kaufhold. Obviousness of Claims 16 and 18—20 over Chee and Diochon Appellants argue claims 16 and 18—20 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as obvious over Chee and Diochon. See Br. 7—8. We select claim 16 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner finds that “Chee teaches a method of mounting a gas turbine engine to a pylon,” that includes, inter alia, “attaching a mounting bracket with a single pin connection” by “attaching a yoke of the mounting bracket about a case of the gas turbine engine,” where the yoke has legs with attachment fastener apertures, but fails to teach that the attachment fastener apertures are “defined along an attachment fastener axis which extends radially inward to intersect an engine axis.” Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner looks to Diochon for teaching first and second attachment fasteners “defined along an attachment fastener axis which extends radially inward to intersect an engine axis.” Final Act. 7 (citing Diochon, col. 2,11. 25—27). From the foregoing, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to extend the yoke assembly (22) of Chee such that the two fastener apertures define a single axis which extends radially inward to intersect an engine axis as taught by Diochon . . . 5 Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 in order to improve resistance to thrust forces and avoid longitudinal bending on the engine resulting [in] no premature wear of engine components as suggested by Diochon.” Id. at 7—8 (citing Diochon, col. 2,11. 2 8—41). While not disputing that Diochon contains the teaching relied upon by the Examiner, Appellants contend that “moving the attachments [in Chee] to create an axis that intersects the engine axis would necessarily change the angle by lessening the angle, which would reduce the ability of the mount to react to engine seizure loads,” and “would render Chee unable to perform the function of counteracting engine loads.” Br. 8. However, the Examiner responds that “the angle does not need to change if the links (48, 54) are maintained, and instead, the arms (46, 56) are extended around the periphery of the engine casing,” pointing out that “Chee recites that while 60 degree is the optimum for the angle, the links could be set at other angles.” Ans. 9 (citing Chee, col. 4,11. 40-43). We agree with the Examiner that “the angle is not required to remain unchanged in order for the invention of Chee to function properly.” Id. Thus, the Examiner has provided “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the combined teachings of Chee and Diochon. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int'l., 550 U.S. at 418. Again, Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions, and we find none. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 18—20 over Chee and Diochon. 6 Appeal 2015-003145 Application 13/417,615 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections. 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