Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13417606 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/417,606 03/12/2012 Gabriel L. Suciu PA0020393U-U73.12-0795KL 7981
12208 7590 02/02/2017
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
MCKINNON, TERRELL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
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 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Gabriel L. Suciu et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—14, 17, and 18.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party
in interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 15, and 16 are cancelled. Br. 9—11 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “an engine mounting configuration and, in
particular, to an engine mounting configuration for mounting a turbofan gas
turbine engine to an aircraft pylon.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 8 are the
independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A mount for a turbine engine, comprising:
a semi-circular yoke having a first leg and a second leg;
a stanchion comprising:
a cylindrical section attached to the yoke; and
a conical section attached to the cylindrical section;
and
a mounting bracket attached to the conical section;
wherein the mounting bracket contains a spherical bearing
configured to receive a fastener and allow for rotation of the
mounting bracket about an axis of the stanchion that is
perpendicular to the engine axis.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Sasaki
Dron
McCaffrey
Diochon
US 6,612,744 B2
US 7,909,285 B2
US 2007/0033795 A1
US 2007/0108341 A1
Sept. 2, 2003
Mar. 22,2011
Feb. 15,2007
May 17, 2007
2
Appeal 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
2. Claims 1, 7—9, 12—14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diochon and McCaffrey.
3. Claims 2—5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Diochon, McCaffrey, and Dron.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Diochon, McCaffrey, Dron, and Sasaki.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claim 13 As Being Indefinite
The Examiner finds that “Claim 13 [is] indefinite because it is unclear
what Applicant is referring to by the language ‘wherein only the first leg also
counteracts a side load.’... the phrase ‘a side load’ has not been sufficiently
described. It is unclear which ‘side’ Applicant is referring to since the
‘sides’ have not been defined.” Final Act. 3.
In response to the rejection, Appellants state that “[s]upport and
explanation [for a side load] are provided in the specification at paragraphs
0017 and 0020. Side load S is even listed as a reference in the drawings.
The engine as mounted will have only the side load S as noted and
described.” Br. 7.
3
Appeal 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
We agree with Appellants that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would readily discern and give meaning to the disputed term. The rejection
of claim 13 cannot be sustained.
The Rejections of Claims 1—5, 7—14, 17, and 18
Appellants argue claims 1—5, 7—14, 17, and 18 as a group. Br. 5—7.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—5, 7—14, 17, and
18 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Diochon discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for the limitations calling for “a cylindrical section attached
to the yoke” and a “mounting bracket containing] a spherical bearing.”
Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner’s determination that “it would have been
obvious matter of design choice to have a support post having a cylindrical
lower section and a conical upper section since such a modification would
have involved a mere change in the size of a component” (Id. at 4—5) is not
contested by Appellants. The Examiner finds that McCaffrey discloses the
missing “spherical bearing” limitation and determines that it would have
been obvious to combine McCaffrey’s spherical bearing with Diochon’s
mount “to provide a mounting bracket that has more adjustability therefore
lending itself for a greater variety of engine types.” Id. at 5.
Appellants present several arguments asserting that the Examiner’s
rejection is incorrect. Appellants argue that Diochon, which discloses a rigid
mounting bracket/device, “teaches away from ... a spherical bearing
[which] allows for rotation of the mounting bracket.” Br. 5—7. According to
Appellants, “[p]lacing a spherical bearing in this location would not allow
Diochon to perform the intended function as the presence of rotation would
4
Appeal 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
not provide rigid attachment fixed to the main box.” Id. (citing to Diochon
19, 46-48). The intended purpose of Diochon’s mounting device is to
provide “a mounting device for engines that will be inserted between an
aircraft wing and an engine” (11), “to form the connecting interface between
an engine and a wing of the aircraft [and] transmit[] forces generated by the
associated engine to the aircraft structure” (14), and to “minimize
longitudinal bending of the engine due to the thrusts, so as to minimize
constraining friction, without needing to oversize the operating clearances
mentioned above” (112). Appellants’ citations to paragraphs 19 and 46-48
of Diochon merely disclose one way — a rigid bracket — to accomplish
these purposes. Because Diochon does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the use of a spherical bearing in its mounting device, Diochon
does not teach away from the claimed invention, or interfere with Diochon’s
intended function. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199—1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (To teach away, a reference’s disclosure must “criticize, discredit or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Further, an intended purpose
is defeated by using something other than the particular means used to
achieve that purpose. Thus, we are not persuaded that Diochon teaches
away from the proposed combination.
In addition, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining
Diochon and McCaffrey — “to provide a mounting bracket that has more
adjustability therefore lending itself for a greater variety of engine types”
{Id. at 5) — has rational underpinning. Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s reasoning and, thus, do not apprise us of error.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 must be sustained.
Claims 2—5, 7—14, 17, and 18 fall with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2015-000639
Application 13/417,606
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7—14, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6