UNISON INDUSTRIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 26, 20212021001955 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021) 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. 15/445,240 02/28/2017 Derek Thomas Dreischarf 317470/72170-0056 6617 91753 7590 10/26/2021 McGarry Bair PC / General Electric Company 45 Ottawa Ave. SW Suite 700 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 EXAMINER SEABE, JUSTIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2021 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): OC.Prosecution@ge.com patents@mcgarrybair.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEREK THOMAS DREISCHARF, JASON LEVI BURDETTE, WALTER ARTHUR HUNDLEY, and BERNARD ALBERT LUSCHEK Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as UNISON INDUSTRIES, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a fan casing assembly. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A fan casing assembly comprising: a fan casing having a peripheral wall; a surface cooler having a first surface confronting the peripheral wall and a forward projection comprising a first hook radially spaced from the first surface and an aft projection comprising a second hook radially spaced from the first surface, the first hook and the second hook located between the peripheral wall and the first surface; and a mounting bracket comprising a monolithic body having a first axial edge having a first channel and second axial edge spaced from the first axial edge where the second axial edge includes a second channel; wherein when the monolithic body is fixed to the peripheral wall, the mounting bracket overlies the first surface and the first channel retains the first hook and the second channel retains the second hook to mount the surface cooler to the fan casing. Appeal Br. 46 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nigmatulin US 2010/0068041 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Storage US 2014/0044525 A1 Feb. 13, 2014 Hundley US 2015/0135726 A1 May 21, 2015 Beichl US 9,759,077 B2 Sept. 12, 2017 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Storage and Nigmatulin. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 3 2. Claims 1–13 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Nigmatulin. Final Act. 8. 3. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Nigmatulin and Beichl. Final Act. 19. OPINION Rejection 1: Hundley in view of Storage and Nigmatulin The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Storage and Nigmatulin. Final Act. 4. As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hundley discloses a fan casing assembly substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that “the forward/aft projections are radially spaced from the first surface and located between the peripheral wall and the first surface, and [that] the bracket is formed of a monolithic body.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Storage discloses a surface cooler having “forward and aft projections (290, 292) which are formed and spaced from a first surface located between the peripheral mounting wall and the first surface.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Storage, Fig. 4). Based thereon, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “modify the mounting projections of Hundley such that they are radially below the surface of the cooler as taught by Storage for the purposes of mounting the cooler as both include aft/forward tabs connected to the cooler, and all that is changed is radially direction upon which they are mounted.” Final Act. 5. Referring to an annotated version of Figure 2 of Nigmatulin, the Examiner also finds that Nigmatulin discloses a casing component having “forward and aft hooks 90 & 95” that extend in the manner claimed, and also discloses a “monolithic mounting bracket [that] overlies the annular first Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 4 surface of the annular shroud member.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Nigmatulin ¶ 11; Figs. 2, 3). Based thereon, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to “incorporate[] the forward and aft hooks of Nigmatulin in the assembly of Hundley, in order to provide . . . an alternative mounting/retaining arrangement,” and to use a mounting bracket that is monolithic “as taught by Nigmatulin for the purposes of reducing parts and pieces.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have known to explore the known options available in the prior art regarding mounting arrangements for annular casing components,” and that the invention of claim 1 is merely a combination of known elements that does not change their respective functions, and merely yields predictable results. Final Act. 7. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. As discussed below, we find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because they do not adequately address the rejection actually applied. The Appellant argues that “the Examiner has misconstrued the Hundley2 reference” because Hundley discloses forward and aft mounting brackets, and “does not teach a mounting bracket with a first axial edge having a first channel and . . . a second axial edge having a second channel.” Appeal Br. 14–15. However, this argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner has conceded that Hundley fails to explicitly disclose these limitations. As the Examiner explains, “Hundley discloses the mounting system including a bracket defined at the first and second axial edges . . . 2 The Appellant italicizes the names of the references in its briefs. We remove such italics in this Decision when quoting the Appellant’s contentions. Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 5 However, these axial edges are formed as two separate pieces,” and “fails to teach the bracket as being defined as a ‘monolithic body’.” Ans. 3 (citing Hundley Fig. 5). The Examiner also explains that, in the applied rejection, such limitations are “provided in combination with Nigmatulin which provides a monolithic body forming the equivalent to a mounting bracket (mounting bracket ‘50’, which is connected to casing ‘4’) for an annular ‘hanging’ component that includes forward and aft hooks (annular shroud member ‘48’).” Ans. 3. The Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection in which “[t]he mounting arrangement is what is being substituted” such that “[t]he mounting bracket [of Hundley] is changed from two pieces into a single monolithic bracket (which is connected to a casing), and the hooks are changed from forward/aft extending flanges to hooks which are radially spaced from the radially outward surface of the oil cooler.” Ans. 4–5. The Appellant also argues that “the Examiner has misconstrued the Nigmatulin reference” because “a fan casing as claimed is not analogous to the inner shroud member 48 of Nigmatulin,” and “the multi-unit shroud assembly, or some part thereof, of Nigmatulin is [not] analogous to a monolithic bracket.” Appeal Br. 15, 16. However, this argument is misdirected because the inner shroud member 48 of Nigmatulin is not being analogized to the recited fan casing, but rather, to the recited surface cooler. Like the recited surface cooler of claim 1, the inner shroud member 48 of Nigmatulin is annular and is mounted to the turbine casing 4 via the outer shroud member 50. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner that “[t]he references are analogous because they are utilized in the same context (gas turbine engine environment), they mount an annular hanging structure to a Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 6 gas turbine engine casing . . ., they utilize bracket structure to do so . . ., and they utilize hook structure within the channel(s) of the bracket structure.” Ans. 4. Moreover, contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, the outer shroud member 50 of Nigmatulin is disclosed as being a monolithic body. See Nigmatulin Fig. 2. The Appellant also argues that, in Nigmatulin, “[e]ach of the [inner and outer] shroud members 48, 50 include hook elements 63, 64, 90, 95 to enable their attachment to each other.” Appeal Br. 15. However, that does not detract from the teaching in Nigmatulin that the inner shroud member 48 is attached to the turbine casing 4 using its hook elements 90, 95 that engage the outer shroud member 50, i.e., the bracket. Indeed, even in the claimed invention, the recited mounting bracket 90 and the surface cooler 50 are attached “to each other” by the first and second hooks 82, 84 engaging the first and second channels 110, 112 of the mounting bracket. See Fig. 8. The Appellant further argues that, in Nigmatulin, “the outer shroud member 50 is mounted to the inner shroud member 48 and therefore the inner surface 82 of the inner shroud member 48 is actually confronting the outer shroud member 50, which is further mounted to the mounting element 60 and therefore no part of the shroud assembly 45 is actually confronting a peripheral wall as claimed.” Appeal Br. 15. However, the Appellant again misunderstands the rejection, which is not based on bodily incorporating the structures of Nigmatulin into Hundley. In particular, as the Examiner explains, “[t]he cooler and casing of Hundley are not being replaced at all. The mounting arrangement is what is being substituted” such that “[t]he mounting bracket [of Hundley] is changed from two pieces into a single monolithic bracket (which is connected to a casing), and the hooks are Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 7 changed from forward/aft extending flanges to hooks which are radially spaced from the radially outward surface of the oil cooler.” Ans. 4–5. Hence, when the arrangement of Nigmatulin for mounting an annular hanging structure is applied to the apparatus of Hundley, the first surface of the cooler body still confronts the peripheral wall of the fan casing. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Nothing of record indicates that modifying the device of Hundley to incorporate the mounting arrangement of Nigmatulin would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. As noted above, the rejection applies the method or teaching of Nigmatulin for mounting an annular hanging structure to the apparatus of Hundley, which is a simple substitution or predictable variation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen 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.”), 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.”). The Appellant further argues that the rejection is improper because “Nigmatulin expressly teaches a multi-unit shroud assembly 45 to provide protection for the turbine casing 4.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Appeal Br. 16 (“[T]he shroud assembly taught by Nigmatulin is clearly multiple pieces.”). However, that does not detract from the fact that the inner shroud member 48 is mounted to the turbine casing 4 via the outer shroud member 50, and Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 8 the Appellant again fails to address the rejection, which is the modification of the mounting arrangement of Hundley based on the mounting arrangement of Nigmatulin. Nigmatulin Figs. 1, 2; ¶ 10 (“Outer shroud member 50 is also shown to include first and second hook elements 63 and 64 that serve as an interface with inner shroud member 48.”); ¶ 11 (“Inner shroud member 48 is also shown to include a first hook member 90 having a first sealing surface 92 and a second hook member 95 having a second sealing surface 97. First hook member 90 extends from first end 76 and second hook member 95 extends from second end 77. First and second hook members 76 and 77 engage with hook elements 63 and 64 on outer shroud member 50 to retain inner shroud 48.”). The Appellant also argues that “[w]hile Nigmatulin does teach a radial space formed by first and second hook members 90, 92, nothing in Nigmatulin teaches or suggests a mounting bracket, let alone a mounting bracket with a monolithic body, channels in said mounting bracket, or arranging the flanges of the mounting bracket in the radial space as asserted by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 16. This argument is unpersuasive because the rejection modifies the mounting brackets of Hundley to be a monolithic body, and as noted, Nigmatulin discloses a monolithic mounting bracket in the form of outer shroud member 50, which attaches the inner shroud member 48 to the casing 4. Nigmatulin ¶¶ 10–11; Figs. 1, 2. The Appellant argues that “[t]he rejection fails to provide any logical reasoning supported in fact drawn from the references themselves for combining the disclosures of Hundley, Storage, and Nigmatulin in such a manner as to reach Appellant’s claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 17. However, we note that explicit teachings for combining the references need Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 9 not be provided by the applied art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19 (rejecting the rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to establish obviousness). Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner has an articulated reason with a rational basis sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 7. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–18 (rejections require an articulated reason with a rational underpinnings to support the conclusion of obviousness). The Appellant further argues that “removing the entirety of the Hundley reference . . . and substituting it with the shroud assembly taught by Nigmatulin . . . would solely leave the structure of Nigmatulin. . . . Nigmatulin fails to teach the claimed casing and the claimed bracket with a monolithic body.” Appeal Br. 18. The Appellant also argues that “[if] only the inner shroud member of Nigmatulin is being used to support the rejection, then this would require the shroud assembly be split into parts rendering Nigmatulin inoperable.” Appeal Br. 18. Moreover, the Appellant argues that the combination of the art does not result in the invention claimed because “by placing the surface cooler into the shroud member of Nigmatulin there is no longer a fan casing nor any sort of bracket system, the combination is also missing the mounting bracket with a monolithic body, furthermore the peripheral wall of the fan casing is missing.” Appeal Br. 20. In that regard, the Appellant relies on figures of the applied art to incorporate structures of Storage and Nigmatulin into Hundley in seeking to establish that the proposed modification would not be made by those of ordinary skill in the art. Appeal Br. 24–25. However, as already addressed above, such bodily incorporation type of arguments do not address the actual rejection made, and are misdirected Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 10 and unpersuasive because they are not directed to “what the rejection states, articulates, or concludes.” Ans. 4. The Appellant argues that if the rejection is that “surface cooler 160 taught by Hundley remains and is mounted to a casing utilizing the hook structure taught by Nigmatulin,” the rejection “would still not reach the claimed invention as, again, Nigmatulin fails to teach the claimed bracket with a monolithic body.” Appeal Br. 18. However, the outer shroud member of Nigmatulin, which mounts the inner shroud member to the turbine casing, is a monolithic body. The Appellant further argues that the rejection engages in improper hindsight because it “relies on information gleaned solely from Appellant’s specification,” and in particular, “a mounting bracket with a monolithic body is only present on the record in Appellant’s specification,” and “[t]he term radial is mentioned only one time in the whole of Nigmatulin’s specification,” which does not pertain to provision of a radial space in which flanges of the mounting bracket occupy. Appeal Br. 19–21; Reply Br. 2. However, we are not persuaded because Nigmatulin teaches a mounting arrangement in which an outer shroud member 50, corresponding to the recited mounting bracket, comprises a monolithic body, and further teaches that the first and second hook members 90, 95 provide a radial space in which first and second hook elements 63 and 64 occupy. Nigmatulin Figs. 1, 2. Moreover, the fact that Nigmatulin does not use the term “radial” in the text of its Specification in a manner pertinent to the claim language does not detract from its disclosure of radial spacing of its first and second hook members 90, 95 in its figures. See Nigmatulin Figs. 2, 3; see In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (drawings can be relied upon for what Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 11 they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art); In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (“[A] drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent.”). Thus, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the teachings of Nigmatulin, and not solely on the Appellant’s Specification as asserted. The Appellant argues that the proposed modification of the surface cooler of Hundley would “render the surface cooler unsuitable for its intended purpose” because replacing the surface cooler of Hundley with that of Storage would render Hundley unusable. Appeal Br. 21. Again, the Appellant misunderstands, and fails to address, the actual rejection and reasoning applied by the Examiner because, “[t]he surface cooler of Hundley was not replaced, the flanges were altered in the radial direction as per the teachings of Storage that it is known to move the mounting arrangement in the radial direction. The fundamental principle of the invention of Hundley does not change at all.” Ans. 7. The Appellant also argues that the proposed substitution based on Nigmatulin “would defeat the purpose of replacing heavy complicated mounting systems with the lighter less complicated one taught by Hundley.” Appeal Br. 22. However, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]here is no evidence that changing the mounting bracket to being monolithic and the hooks facing different directions with a radial gap would make the mounting arrangement be so heavy as to be inoperable.” Ans. 7; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 12 not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”). The Appellant further argues that “nothing in Hundley teaches or suggests hooks extending from a surface cooler,” and that “[t]he hooks as described and taught by Nigmatulin are utilized to form a single unit, in this case a shroud, they are not used to mount the shroud to the casing.” Appeal Br. 23. These arguments are again unpersuasive because the Appellant appears to view the person of ordinary skill in the art as an automaton. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The fact that Nigmatulin discloses an inner shroud member does not detract from its broader teaching to one of ordinary skill that, in the context of turbines, annular structures that are mounted within a casing may be mounted using a hook mounting arrangement, and mounted via a bracket having a monolithic body. See Ans. 4; Nigmatulin Fig. 2. Moreover, as already discussed, the monolithic outer shroud member of Nigmatulin mounts the inner shroud member to the turbine casing. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded of error, we affirm the rejection of independent claim 1. The Appellant relies on dependency on claim 1 for the patentability of claims 2–7. Appeal Br. 25. As such, these claims fall with claim 1. Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 13 Rejection 2: Hundley in view of Nigmatulin The Examiner rejects claims 1–13 and 16–20 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Nigmatulin. Final Act. 8. Similar to Rejection 1, the Examiner refers to an annotated version of Figure 2 of Nigmatulin to find that Nigmatulin discloses a casing component having “forward and aft hooks 90 & 95” that extend and are received in channels of the first and second hook elements 63, 64, and also discloses a monolithic outer shroud member or bracket, which overlies the surface of the annular inner shroud member. Final Act. 8–10 (citing Nigmatulin ¶ 11; Figs. 2, 3). Based thereon, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Hundley to “provide . . . an alternative mounting/retaining arrangement,” and to use a monolithic mounting bracket “as taught by Nigmatulin for the purposes of reducing parts and pieces.” Final Act. 10–11. The Appellant’s arguments in support of patentability of these claims are substantively the same as those submitted relative to claim 1 in arguing Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 26–41. Similarly, the responses of the Examiner are substantively similar to that of Rejection 1 as well. Ans. 9–24. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection for substantially the same reasons as discussed above relative to Rejection 1. Rejection 3: Hundley in view of Nigmatulin and Beichl The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 15 as being unpatentable over Hundley in view of Nigmatulin and Beichl. Final Act. 19. These claims require end walls to prevent sliding of, or to retain, the wear attenuator. Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that “Hundley fails to Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 14 teach the elongated body further comprises end walls configured to prevent sliding of the wear attenuator within the bracket body, thereby retaining the attenuator.” Final Act. 19. However, the Examiner finds that Beichl discloses “a mounting arrangement in a gas turbine engine with a U-shaped recess (24) utilized to mount a wear liner (16)” having “circumferential tabs (28a, 28b) to prevent the circumferential sliding/movement of the liner within the groove/recess.” Final Act. 20. Based thereon, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the liner of Hundley such that it includes end walls configured to prevent sliding as taught by Beichl for the purposes of securing the wear liner and preventing unnecessary wear from sliding.” Final Act. 20. The Appellant relies on dependency, and arguments submitted with respect to claim 1 in Rejection 1, in support of patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 42–45. The Appellant also argues that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight and is conclusory because “Beichl is silent with respect to a mounting bracket of any type,” and as such, “[t]here is no motivation in Hundley or Nigmatulin to look to Beichl for teaching a wear liner with circumferential tabs, because Beichl, does not teach a wear liner.” Appeal Br. 42–43 (citing Beichl, col. 1, ll. 19–22). However, these arguments are unpersuasive because as the Examiner finds, “Hundley already discloses a wear liner that is U-shaped and placed within the channel(s) of the respective forward/aft portions of the bracket,” and “[s]imilarly, Beichl utilizes a liner element in order to mount a circumferentially extending element within the pocket/channel of a gas turbine structure.” Ans. 24–25. Accordingly, as the Examiner points out, it would have been obvious that “utilization of the circumferential tabs prevent Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 15 the liner from moving/rotating in a circumferential direction,” and “[a] reason was articulated in the rejection of record: for the purposes of securing the wear liner and preventing unnecessary wear from sliding.” Ans. 25. As such, the conclusion of obviousness is sufficiently supported by the evidence and articulated reasoning. The Appellant further argues that “the accommodating element as taught by Beichl is metal not a low friction material such as PEEK taught by Hundley and therefore the combination does not reach claim 14.” Appeal Br. 44. However, the Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the applied rejection relies on Beichl for disclosing circumferential tabs that prevent the circumferential sliding/movement of the liner within the groove/recess, and does not incorporate the metal material into the device of Hundley. Final Act. 20. Therefore, the Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 14 and 15 are unpersuasive, and the rejection of these claims is affirmed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7 103 Hundley, Storage, Nigmatulin 1–7 1–13, 16–20 103 Hundley, Nigmatulin 1–13, 16–20 14, 15 103 Hundley, Nigmatulin, Beichl 14, 15 Appeal 2021-001955 Application 15/445,240 16 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation