Husband, Jason

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2020

2019002247 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020)

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.
14/842,907 09/02/2015 Jason Husband 81346US01;
67097-3267PUS1
8437
54549 7590 12/24/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
COLLINS, TIMOTHY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON HUSBAND
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9–13, and 17–25.2 See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies
Corporation, formerly United Technologies Corporation. Update to Real
Party in Interest letter submitted Apr. 23, 2020; Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellant has canceled claims 8, 14–16, and 23. Appeal Br. 10, 11
(Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a link for mounting an aircraft component
to a wing or body of an aircraft. Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, a mount that
has “a first joint, a second joint and a linking structure connecting the first
joint to the second joint” in which the linking structure includes a portion
that is flexible relative to another portion of the structure. Spec. ¶ 5,
Abstract. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 9–11 (Claims
App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An aircraft component link comprising:
a link body having a first joint, a second joint, and a linking
structure connecting the first joint to the second joint; and
the linking structure including at least two first portions
and at least two second portions, the second portions having a
greater rigidity than the first portions, wherein each of the at least
two first portions is connected to another of the at least two first
portions via at least one of the at least two second portions.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Dunleavy US 2012/0119056 A1 May 17, 2012
Bonnet FR 2,965,867 (A1) Apr. 13, 2012
Costello US 2005/0140073 A1 June 30, 2005
REJECTIONS3
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
6, 19 112(b) Indefiniteness
1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 13, 17–25 102 Dunleavy
1–3, 13, 17, 19–24 102 Bonnet

3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 2–5, 7, and 21; as well as, the rejection, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), of
now canceled claim 23. Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

3
3, 5 103 Dunleavy
7 103 Dunleavy, Bonnet
9–12 103 Dunleavy, Costello
4–7, 18 103 Bonnet
9–12 103 Bonnet, Costello
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 19 for being indefinite because
they recite the first portions have “a sufficient rigidity” and they depend
from claims that likewise recite the first portions have a rigidity. Final
Act. 4, 5. The Examiner found it to be “unclear if the sufficient rigidity
recited in [the dependent claims] . . . is the same rigidity recited in parent
[claims].” Id. The Examiner reaffirms in the Answer that “[t]he issue is not
whether ‘rigidity’ is a parameter of a component; the issue is one of clarity.”
Ans. 8. Appellant counters that clarity is not an issue, however, because
“[o]ne of skill in the art would understand that the ‘sufficient rigidity’ of
claims 6 and 19 impose[s] an additional limit on the previously recited
rigidity, and the claims are not indefinite and the rejection should be
overturned.” Appeal Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant because the Examiner has not demonstrated
sufficiently what, if any, uncertainty a skilled artisan would find to exist
with dependent claims 6 and 19. First, claim 6 depends from claim 4, which
in turn depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Claim 1 recites
“a linking structure” that includes “at least two first portions” that are
comparatively less rigid than the “at least two second portions” of the
linking structure––“the second portions having a greater rigidity than the
first portions.” Id. Claim 4 recites that “the rigidity of the at least two first
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

4
portions is sufficient . . . [to] inelastically deform when exposed to loads
greater than a first threshold.” Id. Claim 6 adds that “the at least two first
portions have a sufficient rigidity to elastically deform when exposed to
loads less than or equal to the first threshold.” Id. When viewed in context,
a skilled artisan would readily understand that claims 1, 4, and 6 are
addressing the same “first portions” of the linking structure and that these
claims each recite respective characteristics for the rigidity of these first
portions. Claim 1 describes the rigidity of first portions in relative terms
(i.e., anything less than the rigidity of the second portions); claim 4 describes
the rigidity of the first portions by how they deform when exposed to a load
above a threshold load; and claim 6 describes the rigidity of the first portions
by how they deform when exposed to a load below and equal to the same
threshold load identified in claim 4. The Examiner does not explain
sufficiently what is “unclear” about how claim 6 is drafted and, absent a
more detailed explanation of the alleged uncertainty, we are not persuaded a
skilled artisan would be confused about whether claim 6 is reciting a more
specific characteristic for the rigidity of the first portions recited in its parent
claims.
Second, for dependent claim 19, parent claim 17 recites “[at least two]
flexing portions having a sufficient rigidity to flex during a load outside of
an expected load window” and claim 19 adds that “the at least two flexing
portions have sufficient rigidity to elastically deform during a load inside of
the expected load window.” Id. at 10–11. When viewed in context, a skilled
artisan would readily understand that claim 19 is addressing the same
“flexing portions” of the linking structure recited in claim 17 and that it
further recites the rigidity of the flexing portions enables elastic deformation
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

5
to occur in those portions when it is exposed to a load that is inside of the
“expected load window.” Again, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently
what is “unclear” about how claim 19 is drafted and, absent a more detailed
explanation of the alleged uncertainty, we are not persuaded a skilled artisan
would be confused about whether claim 19 is reciting a more specific
characteristic for the rigidity of the flexing portions recited in its parent
claim.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claim 6 and 19.
Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Dunleavy anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 13,
and 17–25 and, similarly, that Bonnet anticipates claims 1–3, 13, 17, and
19–24. Final Act. 7–15. For both rejections, Appellant argues that the
Examiner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that either Dunleavy or Bonnet
discloses the “link body” each independent claim 1 and 17 recites because
the devices taught by them do not have “a linking structure” that includes a
first/flexing portion “connected to” another first/flexing portion “via” a
second/inelastic portion. Appeal Br. 4–6. For the following reasons, we
find Appellant’s argument persuasive and dispositive of the Examiner’s
anticipation rejections.
a. Dunleavy
Dunleavy discloses a beam, which is partially made from a metal
matrix composite material including reinforcing fibres, for suspending a
turboshaft engine from an aircraft structure. Dunleavy, Abstract. Relying
on the embodiment of this beam illustrated in Figures 17–22, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

6
finds that elements 219,4 224, and 225 show a first joint, elements 219, 234,
and 236 show a second joint, and the body of the beam, 211,5 shows a
linking structure connecting the first joint to the second joint, as independent
claims 1 and 17 recite. Final Act. 7, 10. The Examiner finds next that the
upper mounting plate 215 of beam 211 with its centrally located hole shows
the two first portions (flexing portions) of the recited linking structure and
the two packets of fibers 221 in the upper mounting plate 215 show the two
second portions (inelastic portions) of the recited linking structure of claims
1 and 17. Id. Finally, the Examiner finds that the fibers 221 “extending
between [the] two sides of [the] component link” in Dunleavy show each of
the at least two first (flexing) portions is connected to another of the at least
two first (flexing) portions via at least one of the at least two second
(inelastic) portions. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s determination that the beam 211
of Dunleavy discloses a linking structure in which each of the first/flexing
portions “is connected” to another first/flexing portion “via” a
second/inelastic portion must be based on an unreasonable interpretation.
Appeal Br. 4–6. More specifically, Appellant contends that an interpretation

4 In the Final Action, the Examiner mistakenly identifies element 219 as
“291”. Ans. 10 n.1.
5 The Examiner finds that the body of the beam in Dunleavy shows the
linking structure of claims 1 and 17, but identifies the element as “221.”
Final Act. 7. Dunleavy, however, identifies the beam body as “211” and
uses “221” to identify fibers inserted into the beam. Dunleavy, ¶ 96. The
Examiner also uses “221” to identify the fibers, which creates some
confusion. Final Act. 7. Therefore, for clarity, we will follow Dunleavy’s
lead and use “211” to identify the body of the beam and “221” to identify the
fibers.
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

7
“that allow[s] a component that merely contacts the alleged first portions to
read on the claimed second portions would be plainly unreasonable, and
therefore improper.” Id. at 6. According to Appellant, an
interpretation of the claim language that allows two portions of
a single solid metal component (the face plate 215 of Dunleavy)
as being connected ‘via at least one of the second portions’ due
only to the fact that the fiber pack is inserted into an opening in
the faceplate 215 is plainly inconsistent with Appellant’s
specification.

Reply Br. 2.
Although the Examiner does not set forth a proposed construction
expressly, we agree the Examiner appears to have applied an overly broad
interpretation. The words “connected to” and “via” are not technical terms
and the context of the claims and the Specification do not suggest a meaning
that is different than their plain meanings. Consistent with the plain meaning
and context in which “connected to” and “via” are used in claims 1 and 17,
we agree these claims require the first/flexing portion to be joined or linked
to another of the first/flexing portion of the linking structure by way of a
second/inelastic portion.
The Examiner, however, has not shown sufficiently that the portions
of the upper mounting plate 215 of beam 211 at opposing ends and adjacent
to the first and second joints 219 are joined or linked together by way of the
packet of fibers 221. Dunleavy teaches that “[t]he beam 211 is formed of a
single monolithic block through which the fibers 221 extend.” Dunleavy, ¶
100 (emphasis added). Although the first/flexing portions identified by the
Examiner are within this “single monolithic block” at opposing ends and the
fibers 221 extend through the block at an intermediate position
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

8
therebetween, the construction of the block shown in Figures 17–22 does not
demonstrate that those portions are joined or linked by way of the fibers
because the portions appear joined together by the block structure itself
independent of the fibers 221. In fact, Dunleavy suggests there is a
disconnection between the first/flexing portions adjacent joint 219 and the
fibers because the fibers are configured such that “the shear forces applied to
the attachment means 219 . . . are not transmitted directly to the fibers 221
by the material because these fibers are not, within the material, situated in
line with these attachment means 219 . . . .” Dunleavy, ¶ 98. As a result, we
are not persuaded that the evidence from Dunleavy provided by the
Examiner demonstrates that the portions of the upper mounting plate 215 of
beam 211 at opposing ends and adjacent to the first and second joints are
necessarily joined or linked together by way of the packet of fibers 221.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection that Dunleavy
anticipates independent claims 1 and 17; as well as claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 13,
and 18–25 depending therefrom.
b. Bonnet6
Bonnet teaches that Figure 1 shows a structural connection device 10
that “comprises two main parts: on the one hand a primary connecting
rod 100 and, on the other hand, a secondary connecting rod 200 comprising
an axial recess, passing through its two ends . . . in which the primary
connecting rod 100 is inserted.” Bonnet, 5. Bonnet teaches that, in
operation, this structural connection device enables the secondary rod 200 to
take up loads below a fatigue load and filter the vibrations and, once the

6 Citations to the Specification of Bonnet are to the machine-generated
translation made of record on August 3, 2017.
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

9
fatigue loads have been exceeded, the loads are then transferred mainly
through the primary rod 100. Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner finds that the structural connection device 10 discloses
the recited elements of independent claims 1 and 17. Final Act. 12–13;
Ans. 12–13. In particular, the Examiner finds that elements 201 and 202 of
the secondary connecting rod 200 disclose the recited first/flexing portions
and that element 101 of primary connecting rod 100 discloses the recited
second/inelastic portions. Id. Additionally, the Examiner finds that
Figures 1, 2a, and 2b of Bonnet show that “each blade 201, 202 [is]
connected to the other blade via connecting rod body 101.” Id. at 13.
Appellant contends Bonnet does not show blades 201 and 202 as
joined or linked together by way of connecting rod body 101, but instead
teaches that the blades are joined together as part of the secondary
connecting rod 200, which is a wholly separate structure than the primary
connecting rod 100 and its body 101. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends that
“Figure 2a of Bonnet makes it evident that the alleged ‘first portions’ (side
blades 201, 202) are not connected to each other via the alleged second
portions (center structure 101),” but are instead are “connected to directly to
the joint, which in turn connects them to each other.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellant that Bonnet does not disclose elements 201
and 202 of the secondary connecting rod 200 are joined together by way of
the primary connecting rod 100 and its body 101. Bonnet teaches that “at
each of their lower and upper ends, the lateral blades 201, 202 are secured to
a collar 215, 225, of mainly square shape, adapted to allow passage of the
first and second screws of the connecting rod 100.” Bonnet, 7. In addition,
Bonnet teaches that primary connecting rod 100 and secondary connecting
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

10
rod operate independently with secondary rod 200 transfer loads below a
fatigue load and primary rod 100 transferring loads above the fatigue load.
Id. at 7–8. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection that
Bonnet anticipates independent claims 1 and 17; as well as claims 2, 3, 13,
and 19–24 depending therefrom.
Obviousness
Each of the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3–7, 9–12,
and 18 depends on the Examiner’s finding that either Dunleavy or Bonnet
anticipates independent claims 1 and 17. See Final Act. 16–22. Because we
do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of either claim 1 or
claim 17, we do not sustain the Examiner obviousness rejections of claims
3–7, 9–12, and 18.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9–13, and 17–25 are
reversed.
Appeal 2019-002247
Application 14/842,907

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 19 112(b) Indefiniteness 6, 19
1, 2, 4, 6, 9,
13, 17–25
102 Dunleavy 1, 2, 4, 6, 9,
13, 17–25
1–3, 13, 17,
19–24
102 Bonnet 1–3, 13, 17,
19–24
3, 5 103 Dunleavy 3, 5
7 103 Dunleavy, Bonnet 7
9–12 103 Dunleavy, Costello 9–12
4–7, 18 103 Bonnet 4–7, 18
9–12 103 Bonnet, Costello 9–12

REVERSED