Ex Parte Sullivan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14073188 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/073,188 11/06/2013
91017 7590 03/28/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Sullivan
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.
62422USOl(U330120US) 7132
EXAMINER
WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES SULLIVAN,
ROBERT GUILLEMETTE, JINKYU CHOI,
WAYNE E. PETROSKEY, ERIC K. HANSEN,
ANTHONY G. CHORY, and YOUNG HANH LE DO
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073,188
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejections of
claims 9-20. Claims 1-8, the other claims pending in this application, stand
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation" (Br. 2).
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
Appellants' invention is directed to methods for preventing or
reducing corrosion damage to rotary-wing aircraft components, such as
gearboxes. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 9 is illustrative (emphasis added):
9. A method of rebuilding a damaged portion of a groove in
a magnesium component, comprising:
forming an area in a sidewall by removing all material
exhibiting wear or localized corrosion and pitting, the sidewall
defining a portion of a recessed opening located within a
central portion of the groove;
creating a deposit in the area, the deposit being integrally
formed with the sidewall and an inner surface of a recessed
opening of the groove; and
removing any excess material from the deposit.
Br. 13-14 (Claims App.).
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated over Ngo et al. (US
2013/0209826 Al, Aug. 15, 2013, "Ngo").
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ngo.
3. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ngo in view of Raybould et al. (US 7,455,881 B2,
issued Nov. 25, 2008, "Raybould").
Appellants' arguments focus solely on independent claims 9 and 16.
Br. 8-12. We select claim 9 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, claims 10-20 will stand or fall with our analysis of claim 9.
2
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Ngo's Figure 2, which illustrates a sectional view of a component
with a damaged internally threaded opening before structural repair, is
reproduced below.
FIG.2
Figure 2 illustrates features of component 12 including internally
threaded opening 14, and damaged internal threads 16.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that "Ngo does not disclose that [the]
damaged material being removed is from a sidewall that defines a portion of
a recessed opening located within a central portion of the groove." Br. 9.
Appellants further argue that Ngo's "opening 14 appears to be exposed at an
outer surface of a component 12 and is easily accessible to allow installation
and removal of a threaded fastener therein." Id at 10.
On the other hand, according to Appellants, the Specification provides
that "the recessed opening[] must be arranged at a location offset from a
surface of gearbox housing[] such that a sidewall[] extends between the
recessed opening[], and the surface." Id at 9. (citing Spec. 19; Figure 4).
The Examiner responds by finding that Ngo' s "component 12
comprised opening/groove 14[,] which had sidewalls 24 on which were
3
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
damaged material in the form of threads 16, which were removed" as shown
in Figure 3. Ans. 2.
Ngo's Figure 3, which illustrates a sectional view of a machined
opening, is reproduced below.
20
.--------. ~ i----D---i
18
24
22
\ I
FIG. 3
Figure 3 illustrates features of component 12 including machined
opening 30, and a continuous circumferential sidewall 24.
The Examiner "considers the empty space within the groove/opening
14 to be the recessed opening and since this empty space/recessed opening is
surrounded by the sidewalls 24[,] the sidewalls[,] therefore[,] define a
portion of the recessed opening[,] which is also located within a central
portion of the groove/opening 14." Id. at 2-3. According to the Examiner,
Appellants' "argument that the recessed opening is actually an internal
cavity in the sidewall of a groove as shown in Figure 4 of the [S]pecification
of the present application is not persuasive because the claims as currently
written are not limited to this embodiment." Id. at 3.
4
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
We begin by interpreting the language of claim 9. In particular, we
construe the phrase "a recessed opening located within a central portion of
the groove."
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this instance, the Examiner finds that Ngo's "hole/opening 14
structure ... is consistent with the groove 30 structure disclosed within" the
Specification. Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner determines that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the phrase "a recessed opening located within a
central portion of the groove" does not require that the recessed opening is
arranged at a location offset from a surface. Id.
Appellants argue that, based on the Specification, this interpretation of
the claim term "a recessed opening located within a central portion of the
groove" is incorrect. See Br. 9.
Figure 4, which illustrates a cross-sectional view of a portion of a
gearbox housing including a groove, is reproduced below.
5
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
24 /
0
\(
/-1)
I ~ ,f
I 11 J
I ll I I,,
I I "
t ..................... J •••••••••••••••••• J Fi(J. 4
Figure 4 illustrates features of gearbox housing 22 including groove
30, recessed opening 32, and first and second sidewall 34, and first opening
24.
We first note that Figure 3 depicts an exemplary gearbox housing 22,
which "generally includes a plurality of first openings 24 and a plurality of
second openings 26." Spec. i-f 18. The Specification further describes that:
the plurality of grooves 30 are arranged within one or more of the
plurality of first openings 24 or the plurality of second openings
26, as illustrated in FIG. 4 [and FIG. 3], such that the sidewalls
34 are formed by the housing 22. However, the grooves 30 may
be formed in any portion of the gearbox housing 22.
Id. at i-f 19 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification does not contain any
disclosure describing embodiments in which recess openings are on the
external swface of a magnesium component, such as gearbox housing 22.
Therefore, the Specification suggests that the Examiner's
interpretation set forth above is not reasonable. In other words, the
Specification contains disclosure that is inconsistent with the Examiner's
broader interpretation. Accordingly, we conclude that the term "a recessed
6
Appeal2017-007409
Application 14/073, 188
opening located within a central portion of the groove" means that the
recessed opening must be arranged at a location offset from a surface of
gearbox housing and within the groove. Likewise, we further conclude that
the term "the sidewall defining a portion of a recessed opening" means that
the sidewall must be arranged such that it extends between the recessed
opening and the surface.
On this record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence does
not support a finding that Ngo describes or teaches a recessed opening
located within a central portion of the groove, as required in claim 9.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's§ 102(a)(l) rejection of
claims 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20. We further reverse the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections of claims 10, 14, and 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7