Ex Parte XuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201713622632 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) 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. 13/622,632 09/19/2012 JinQuan Xu PA-0022852-US 3939 11943 7590 0""Shea Getz P.C. 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 Farmington, CT 06032 06/02/2017 EXAMINER RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 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): 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 JINQUAN XU Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,6321 Technology Center 3600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, 12, 14, and 21—23. 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. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,632 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a lubrication system for a gas turbine engine.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A lubricant tank, comprising: a lubricant tank body; a lubricant tank discharge passageway at least partially within said lubricant tank body, wherein said lubricant tank discharge passageway includes a sidewall and an opening through said sidewall, and wherein said opening is configured to allow lubricant transfer between said lubricant tank discharge passageway and said lubricant tank body; and a porous media inserted within said opening. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1,2, 5—8, 11, 12, 14, and 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sheridan al. (US 8,020,665 B2; issued Sept. 20, 2011) (hereinafter “Sheridan”) and Thivierge et al. (US 2011/0048856 Al; published Mar. 3, 2011) (hereinafter “Thivierge”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the August 27, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—10) and (2) the May 25, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—5). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 2 Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,632 Combining Sheridan and Thivierge Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine the relevant teachings of Sheridan and Thivierge. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. As to Sheridan, Appellant argues it teaches a lubricant tank (i.e., auxiliary tank or reservoir 48) having no rotating elements within the tank, and thus, Sheridan’s expelled oil “will have much different flow dynamics” than oil directly expelled from a gear train having rotating elements present (e.g., Thivierge’s embodiments). App. Br. 10 (citing Sheridan Figs. 7—8); see also Reply Br. 2 (arguing Thivierge’s expelled oil flows along a generally tangential trajectory and changes trajectory as it flows to the drain, in contrast to Sheridan’s expelled oil flows along a generally common trajectory without an abrupt change). As to Thivierge, Appellant argues its teachings relate to using a porous element to “reduc[e] the velocity of and calm[] lubricant expelled from [a cavity having] rotating components.” App. Br. 10 (citing Thivierge 1128, 34—35); see also App. Br. 9 (quoting Thivierge 12 (“[T]he used lubricant expelled from the rotating components ... has an increased velocity and circulates along a swirling path, such that the used lubricant typically has a tendency to remain within the cavity containing the rotating component for a given period of time instead of circulating directly to the drains of the scavenge system.'”)). Appellants contend, thus, “a person of skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the teachings of Sheridan and Thivierge . . . [because] there are no rotating components within the reservoir 48 of Sheridan.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds the combination of Sheridan and Thivierge are properly combined. Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Sheridan 3 Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,632 teaches or suggests “[t]he expelled lubricant will enter tank 48 with high velocity and with turbulent flow dynamics.” Ans. 2 (citing Sheridan col. 3, 11. 37—39 (“During normal operation, rotation of the gears expels lubricant radially outwardly, and with a high tangential velocity, into the lubricant recovery gutter 26.”)). The Examiner finds Thivierge teaches or suggests including a porous media in a lubrication system similar to Sheridan’s to reduce the expelled oil’s velocity and turbulence. Final Act. 4 (citing Thivierge 135, Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide Thivierge’s porous media at Sheridan’s pore openings to “reduce the velocity of the lubricant circulating through the openings in order to decrease the overall volume of lubricant required within the system and reduce the total engine weight.” Final Act. 4 (citing Thivierge 135). We find the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning [(e.g., reduce oil turbulence and velocity)] with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reasoning provides insufficient motivation to combine the relevant teachings of Sheridan and Thivierge. See Final Act. 4; KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). 4 Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,632 Appellant casts the references’ teachings too narrowly without addressing persuasively why one of ordinary skill in the art would limit Thivierge’s teachings to tanks having rotating components. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). We also find the evidence of record insufficient to persuade us that the expelled oil flow dynamics in Sheridan’s system would be so different from the expelled oil flow dynamics in Thivierge’s system so as to negate the benefits of Thivierge’s teachings of using a porous element to reduce oil turbulence and velocity. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Our above findings and reasoning regarding combining Sheridan and Thivierge apply to Appellant’s arguments made with respect to independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 14. CONCLUSION Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,5,8, and 14, as well as claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 21—23, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their patentability. 5 Appeal 2016-007393 Application 13/622,632 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, 12, 14, and 21-23. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation