United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019006151 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
15/073,193 03/17/2016 John E. Wilber 1213-92826 8544
11943 7590 05/13/2020
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
WILENSKY, MOSHE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN E. WILBER and WALID ALOMARI
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, 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 1–8 and 10.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appellant indicates that claims 1, 3–6, 8–10, and 12–16 are on appeal, that
claims 2, 7, and 11 have been cancelled, and that no claims have been
withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 3. Based on the Claims
Appendix and the Final Office Action, however, claims 1–8 and 10 appear
to be on appeal, and claims 11–20 appear to be withdrawn. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a toolset. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A toolset comprising:
a face locator plate that seats a component;
a location transfer assembly that obtains and retains at
least one parameter associated with a rivet hole of the component
to project the at least one parameter from the toolset onto a
replacement component, the location transfer assembly including
a bushing clamp body;
a locator pin seated by the bushing clamp body and
positioned in-line with the rivet hole of the component;
a lock nut that is tightened when the locator pin is
seated by the bushing clamp body to retain the at least one
parameter; and
a drill, seated by the bushing clamp body, that forms a rivet
hole in the replacement component in accordance with the
retained at least one parameter when the replacement component
is seated by the face locator plate.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bui US 9,108,250 B1 Aug. 18, 2015
REJECTION
Claim 1–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by Bui.
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

3
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that “Bui . . . teaches a lock nut (502),” which “is
a nut having a locking mechanism (501).” Final Act. 2.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant only disputes the Examiner’s finding
regarding the recited “lock nut.” Appeal Br. 7–9. Appellant contends that
“[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘nut’ is ‘a perforated block usually of
metal that has an internal screw thread and is used on a bolt or screw for
tightening or holding something.’” Id. at 8 (citing www.merriam-
webster.com). Appellant contends that “[a] fair and proper reading of Bui
reveals that the locking mechanism 501 itself is not used on a bolt or screw
for tightening or holding something.” Id.
Appellant acknowledges that Bui’s “locking mechanism 501 includes
a first component 502 and a second component that threadingly engage,” but
contends that “locking mechanism 501 itself cannot be said to be a nut since
it [is] not used on a bolt or screw for tightening or holding something.” Id.
at 8–9 (emphasis added). Appellant explains that “[o]nce the locking
mechanism 501 is assembled with the various components as illustrated in
FIGs. 6–12, for example, it is clear that the second component 504 is merely
inserted into one of the openings 304, 306, 308, 310 without any threaded
connection that is associated with a nut.” Id. at 9.
Figures 8 and 9 of Bui are reproduced below, with our annotations to
facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

4

Figure 8 is “an exploded isometric view of [Bui’s] alignment system.” Bui
2:55–57.
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

5

Figure 9 is “a cross-sectional view of [the] alignment system.” Id. at 2:58–
61. Bui explains that “fastener 806 may be used to keep second component
504, and thereby bushing assembly 500, located within opening 306 of
structure 302.” Id. at 11:67–12:2. “When first component 502 is
threadingly engaged with second component 504, locking mechanism 501
holds bushing assembly 500 in a fixed state.” Id. at 10:33–35.
The Examiner responds that “[t]he rejection states that the lock nut is
[Bui’s] element (502), one of several sub-elements of locking mechanism
(501).” Ans. 5. The Examiner explains that “element (502) . . . is a
perforated block with an internal screw thread (608),” and “therefore has all
of the structural elements of a nut.” Id. The Examiner explains that
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

6
“[A]ppellant’s argument that the nut is ‘not used on a bolt or screw for
tightening or holding something’ is irrelevant” because “[t]his portion of the
definition relates to the intended use of a nut,” and “[a] nut remains a nut,
even when it is not attached to a bolt.” Id. at 6. The Examiner reiterates that
“[e]lement (502) has all of the structural requirements of a nut, by
appellant’s definition.” Id. Appellant’s Reply Brief does not respond to this
explanation from the Examiner. See Reply Br. 1.
Appellant’s Figure 3 is reproduced below, with our annotations to
facilitate discussion.

Figure 3 is a section view of Appellant’s “location transfer assembly.” Spec.
¶ 9. The Specification explains that “[t]he bushing plate 310 may be fixed
within the riser plate.” Spec. ¶ 27. “The locator pin 348 may be inserted
into the rivet hole 304 until it can be pushed in no further” (id. ¶ 35) and “the
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

7
lock nut 322 may be tightened to secure the bushing clamp body 316 to the
bushing plate 310” (id. ¶ 36).
The claim recites that the “lock nut . . . is tightened when the locator
pin is seated by the bushing clamp body to retain the at least one parameter.”
The claim does not require the “lock nut” to be tightened onto any particular
element. The Specification describes the “parameter” as simply being a
“location, size, etc.” “associated with one or more rivet holes.” Spec. ¶ 13.
As explained above, Appellant does not advocate for any special
meaning for the term “lock nut,” and, instead, asserts a dictionary definition
for its plain and ordinary meaning. Appellant fails to apprise us of any
structural difference between Bui’s element 502 and the recited “lock nut.”
Rather, as noted by the Examiner, Appellant contends that Bui’s element
502 is not a “lock nut” because it is “not used on a bolt or screw for
tightening or holding something.” Appeal Br. 9. We agree with the
Examiner that this contention is not persuasive of error because, again,
Appellant fails to identify any structure missing from Bui’s element 502.
Moreover, as seen in the reproduced version of Appellant’s Figure 3 above,
Appellant’s lock nut 322 is used on bushing clamp body 316, rather than a
bolt or screw.
Appellant fails to identify any functionality required by the claim that
is missing from Bui’s element 502. Appellant contends that Bui’s
“component 504 is merely inserted into one of the openings 304, 306, 308,
310 without any threaded connection that is associated with a nut,” but fails
to tie this contention to any particular claim requirement. Appeal Br. 9.
Simply stated, Appellant’s contentions are not commensurate with the scope
of the claims. Moreover, like Appellant’s lock nut 322, Bui’s first
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

8
component 502 is expressly disclosed as being “threadingly engaged with
second component 504” to “hold[] bushing assembly 500 in a fixed state.”
Bui 10:33–35.
Appellant does not provide separate argument, in the Appeal Brief, for
claims 2–5 and 10, which depend from claim 1.
Appellant provides new arguments in its Reply Brief directed to
claims 1, 3, and 4. Our rules state that “[a]ny argument raised in the reply
brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an
argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the
Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). There arguments were not raised in the Appeal Brief,
nor are they responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer. The
portions of the Answer to which Appellant’s Reply Brief arguments purport
to respond are simply a verbatim reproduction of the rejection from the Final
Action. See Reply Br. 1–2 (referencing Ans. 3–4); compare Ans. 3–4 with
Final Act. 2–3.
For at least the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in
the rejection of claims 1–5 and 10.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further requires that “the bushing
clamp body selectively engages with a first surface of the bushing plate, and
the lock nut selectively engages with a second surface of the bushing plate.”
The Examiner finds that Bui’s second component 504 corresponds to the
recited “bushing plate.” Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

9
Appellant contends that “second component 504 does not have first
and second surfaces which engage with the claimed bushing clamp and the
claimed lock nut, respectively.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner responds with an annotated version of Bui’s Figure 9,
reproduced below.

The Examiner’s annotated figure is Bui’s Figure 9, which is a cross-
sectional view of Bui’s alignment system, with the addition of regions
circled that are considered to meet claim 6’s requirement of contact at
second component’s first and second surfaces. Ans. 7. The Examiner
explains that “[e]lement (504) threadedly engages the lock nut (502) in the
Appeal 2019-006151
Application 15/073,193

10
top circle” and “also contacts the bushing clamp body (806) in the bottom
circle at its lowest outer surface.” Id.
As seen in Bui’s Figure 9 and explained by the Examiner, the cited
structure of Bui meets the disputed limitation in claim 6. Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s explanation in the Reply Brief and thus does not
apprise us of Examiner error in this regard.
Appellant does not provide separate argument for claims 7 and 8,
which depend from claim 6.
For at least the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in
the rejection of claims 6–8.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10 102(a)(1) Bui 1–8, 10

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