UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020005009 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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.
15/075,386 03/21/2016 Christopher R. Osborne 67097-3337
PUS1; 92679US0
2835
54549 7590 04/02/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHANG, RICK KILTAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER R. OSBORNE, NICHOLAS G. MORGANTI,
BERNARD W. PUDVAH, and ANTHONY VALENTI
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, 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 1–13 and 21. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 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 (Apr. 23, 2020), 1.
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “link setting assembly.” Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A link setting assembly, comprising:
a fixture including at least one platform mount and at least
one linkage mount, wherein the at least one linkage mount is
spaced-apart from the platform mount by a distance
corresponding to a predetermined link length.
REFERENCE
Name Reference Date
Pudvah US 2014/0010637 A1 Jan. 9, 2014
REJECTION
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–13, 21 102(a)(1) Pudvah
OPINION
Appellant treats claim 1 as representative of claims 1–5 and 7–13, and
discusses claims 6 and 21 separately. Appeal Br. 2–7. We do likewise. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Pudvah’s “assembly (10)” corresponds to the
claimed link setting assembly. Final Act. 3 (citing Pudvah, Fig. 2B). The
Examiner further finds that Pudvah’s engine case 26 corresponds to the
claimed fixture, dog-bone arm 34 corresponds to the claimed at least one
platform mount, and the structure coupling linkage 56a to variable guide
vane (VGV) unison ring 64a corresponds to the at least one linkage mount
spaced apart from the platform mount by a distance corresponding to a
predetermined link length. Final Act. 3 (citing Pudvah, Fig. 2B). In support
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

3
of this latter finding, the Examiner explains that “the distance between the
linkage mount and the platform mount will inherently ‘correspond’ to the
length of link (56a), i.e. the distance is 1.xx times (for example, 1.75 times)
the length of link (56a) as shown in Fig. 2B.” Id. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains that “the plain meaning of the term ‘link setting
assembly’ is any physical structure or combination of elements that
physically sets a link in a particular orientation.” Ans. 8.
Appellant primarily argues that the Examiner’s reading of the claimed
“link setting assembly” on an assembly of a gas turbine engine (i.e.,
Pudvah’s assembly 10) is “improper.” Appeal Br. 2. Appellant notes that
Pudvah’s assembly 10 “is an assembly of ‘a compressor section of a gas
turbine engine,’” and “includes ‘a plurality of rotatable variable guide vanes
12a–12d, a plurality of rotor blades 14, an actuator 20, a torque box 22 and a
plurality of assembly linkages.’” Id. at 4 (citing Pudvah ¶ 14). Appellant
contends that the Specification teaches that a link setting assembly is
structurally different from an assembly of a gas turbine engine. That is,
according to Appellant:
[T]he specification explains that “[t]he link setting assembly
112 is used to set the length and angular position of the links
84, 86, 88, 90 before mounting the torque box assembly 64 to
the engine 20,’ . . . [and] that ‘[t]he link setting assembly 112 of
this disclosure eliminates the need to set the length and angular
position of the links individually as the torque box assembly 64
is mounted to the engine’ and ‘[b]y setting the links before
mounting to the engine, this disclosure reduces assembly time
and assembly errors.’”
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

4
Id. (quoting Pudvah ¶¶ 43, 56). Thus, Appellant is of the view that
“[r]eading a ‘link setting assembly’ on a portion of an engine is inconsistent
with the specification.” Id.
This argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. First, Appellant
does not direct us to any express definition of “link setting assembly” in the
Specification (or contend that it is a term of art and provide us with a
commonly understood definition of the term), much less a definition that is
inconsistent with Pudvah’s assembly 10 being considered a “link setting
assembly.” Second, the excerpts of the Specification on which Appellant
relies describe a specific embodiment of the invention—link setting
assembly 112—not the invention itself. See Spec. ¶¶ 43, 56 (describing link
setting assembly 112). “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred
embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record
that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Epos Techs. Ltd. v.
Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, these excerpts do not
actually describe the structure of a link setting assembly as Appellant
contends, but rather discuss its function. Appellant does not associate that
function with any specific structural differences between a “link setting
assembly” and Pudvah’s assembly 10. Appellant does not dispute, for
example, the Examiner’s finding that the distance between the structure that
the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed linkage mount and the
structure that the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed platform mount
“inherently ‘correspond[s]’ to the length of link (56a).” Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

5
Appellant next argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Pudvah’s
dog-bone arm 34 corresponds to the claimed platform mount. Appeal Br. 4–
5. Appellant asserts that “dog-bone arm 34 is a linkage.” Id. at 5. That is,
according to Appellant, “[b]ased on the plain meaning of the terms mount
and linkage, especially in light of Appellant’s claims and specification
(which do not use the terms interchangeably), one skilled in the art would
not read a ‘mount’ on a dog-bone arm.” Id.
The Examiner responds that dog bone arm 34 “is a flat, dog-bone
shaped plate mounted to and above fixture (26), and element (36), as well as
other linkages, are mounted thereon/thereto.” Ans. 9 (citing Pudva, Figs.
2A–2B). According to the Examiner, based on the plain meanings of
“platform” (“‘a usually raised horizontal flat surface’”) and “mount”
(“‘frame, support’”), dog-bone arm 34 can reasonably be considered a
“platform mount.” Ans. 9 (quoting Merriam-Webster (emphasis added by
Examiner)). In the Reply Brief, Appellant responds that there is a “known
difference” between “mount” and a “linkage,” i.e., “a mount is known to be
a support whereas a linkage transmits motion between two things.” Reply
Brief 2.
This argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not dispute the
general definitions of “platform” and “mount” that the Examiner proffers.
Instead, Appellant relies on the “plain meaning[s]” of “mount” and
“linkage,” which, according to Appellant, are mutually exclusive. Appellant
does not, however, provide evidence supporting its interpretation of these
terms; its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would never
consider a linkage to be a mount is, therefore, unpersuasive attorney
argument. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

6
that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value).
In sum, because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Pudvah, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 2–5 and 7–13, which fall therewith.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 via claims 2–4. Appeal Br. 9–10
(Claims App.). As a result of these dependencies, claim 6 recites a first,
second, third, and fourth linkage mounts that are, with the at least one
platform mount, “provided on a common fixture plate.” Id. at 10. The
Examiner finds that four-bar linkage 44 corresponds to the claimed common
fixture plate. Final Act. 4. Appellant responds that “Pudvah’s four-bar
linkage is not a ‘plate,’ let alone a ‘common’ plate to which a platform
mount and four linkage mounts are attached.” Appeal Br. 5. In the
Examiner Answer, the Examiner contends in response that Pudvah’s four-
bar linkage 44 has
smooth, flat top and bottom surfaces and [is] relatively thin (a
plate is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a smooth flat thin piece
of material”), to which [the] at least one platform mount (34) and
first, second, third, and fourth linkage mounts are attached
(indirectly, via components 36, 48a, 48b, 48c, 56a, 56b, 56c, and
58 . . .).
Ans. 9. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates that Pudvah’s four-bar
linkage “is not a ‘plate,’” and further asserts that “even if it were, the
Examiner has not explained how four linkages and a platform mount are
‘provided on’ that (non-existent) plate.” Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

7
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Although Appellant disputes that Pudvah’s four-bar linkage is a “plate,”
Appellant does not address the Merriam-Webster definition of the term that
the Examiner proffers, and does not otherwise support its position with
evidence or persuasive argument. Appellant’s assertion, standing alone, is
unpersuasive attorney argument. See Geisler, supra. We also disagree that
the Examiner “has not explained how four linkages and a platform mount
are ‘provided on’” the plate. The Examiner provides an annotated version of
Pudvah’s Figure 2B depicting the locations of the structure that the
Examiner contends corresponds to the claimed platform mount, linkage
mounts, and common fixture plate (Ans. 4), and finds that “the platform
mount and linkage mounts are all connected to fixture plate 44 (indirectly,
via components 36, 48a, 48b, 48c, 56a, 56b, 56c, and 59)” (id. at 5).
Appellant does not discuss this analysis, much less explain why the indirect
connection relied on by the Examiner does not meet the “provided on”
limitation.
Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 as anticipated by Pudvah, the rejection is sustained.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein the
link setting assembly is configured to set one of a length and an angular
position of a link before the link is mounted to a gas turbine engine.” The
Examiner finds that Pudvah discloses this limitation, reasoning that “since
assembly (10) is attachable and removable from the gas turbine engine
through a series of fasteners and brackets (linkage mounts), it would be
inherently capable of permitting a user to pre-set the lengths of the links
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

8
prior to its mounting on the gas turbine engine.” Final Act. 5. Appellant
responds that “[t]here is not one single fact or piece of evidence supporting
the Examiner’s position that Pudvah’s assembly 10 is inherently configured
to pre-set its links before mounting them to an engine.” Appeal Br. 7. In the
Answer, the Examiner clarifies that:
the plain meaning of the phrase "mounted to a gas turbine
engine" is understood by the examiner to mean the final
assembly of the links onto the gas turbine engine, i.e. once the
links are positioned on and finally secured/tightened to the gas
turbine engine. The link setting assembly of Pudvah sets the
angular position and lengths of the links right up to the point of
the actual mounting/securing/tightening of the links onto the
gas turbine engine.
Ans. 10. In response to this clarification, Appellant asserts that “if the
length and/or angular position of a link changes up until the point of fully
tightening, then that does not result in setting the length/angle ‘before’
mounting, as claimed.” Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. According to the Examiner, Pudvah’s link
setting assembly 10 sets the lengths and angular positions of the links “right
up to the point” of the “mounting/securing/tightening” of the links onto the
engine (i.e., the sync rings). We fail to see a meaningful distinction between
“right up to the point” of “mounting/securing/tightening” and concurrently
with “mounting/securing/tightening.” If Pudvah’s link setting assembly sets
the lengths and angular positions concurrently with
mounting/securing/tightening, it does not do so before
mounting/securing/tightening, and therefore does not meet the requirements
of claim 21. This rejection is not sustained.
Appeal 2020-005009
Application 15/075,386

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed in part.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 21 102(a)(1) Pudvah 1–13 21

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 IN PART