Yann Simonneaux et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2020

15200190 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
15/200,190 07/01/2016 Yann Simonneaux W&R-207US 5182
23122 7590 10/19/2020
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2020 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YANN SIMONNEAUX and STEVEN WHITMAN

Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellant requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
of July 28, 2020 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16–21. See Request for Rehearing filed
September 15, 2020 (“Request”).
The Request is denied.

Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

2
DISCUSSION
A “request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellant’s Request identifies two such alleged
points.
Appellant’s first such point is that, “[o]n page 5 of the Decision, the
Board erroneously relies solely on the Examiner’s comparison of the mass
of a small aircraft with that of a car, without addressing the Appellant’s
arguments that the forces are significantly different.” Request 1 (italics
added). However, we explicitly relied also on the ordinary skill and
creativity of a person of ordinary skill. More specifically, we stated the
following
The Examiner rebuts this argument by pointing out that
the claim is not limited to the landing gear of a massive aircraft
such as a Boeing 747 and that “the average weight of a small
compact car (about 2800lb) is in the same general weight class
as that of a Cessna (about 2500lb).” Ans. 9. The Examiner
further explains, correctly, that “the test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In that
regard, the Examiner finds that “one of ordinary skill in the shock
absorber art would have known how to use the shock absorber
teachings of JP'3 3 8 to select the appropriate magnets to achieve
an appropriate magnet-to-magnet interaction” for an aircraft
application. Id. at 9–10.
Decision 5. Thus, Appellant’s first point is erroneous.
Appellant’s second point is that we allegedly overlooked or
misapprehended Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments against the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

3
stated rationale for modifying APA1 in view of JP ’338,2 and, as a result,
erroneously considered the Appellant to have “conceded” the issue.
Request 2–3. Appellant is mistaken.
We did not find that Appellant conceded the issue. We explicitly
considered, and even quoted from, Appellant’s arguments against the
Examiner’s stated rationale. See Decision 6 (“Appellant argues that this
rationale is insufficient because the Examiner did not specify the ‘certain
movements.’ Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues that APA already
restricts ‘axial rotation of the first body relative to the second body,’ as
recited in claim 1, via torque link 112. Id.”). We then explained why those
arguments were not persuasive in view of the Examiner’s Answer and noted
that the Reply Brief added nothing further consider. Final Act. 6. We
concluded: “Appellant’s challenge to the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying APA’s cross section profiles for the first bearing surface and the
first counter-face portion from circular to noncircular in view of JP ’338
does not apprise us of error.” Id. at 6–7.
Appellant’s Request fails to show anything our Decision
misapprehended or overlooked. Accordingly, the Request is denied.

1 The Examiner identified Appellant’s Figure 1 as the Admitted Prior Art or
“APA.” Final Act. 2; see also Spec. ¶27 (“Figure 1 is a schematic
representation showing a longitudinal cross-sectional view of a known
landing gear including a shock strut.” (emphasis added)).
2 JPS643338 (A), published Sept. 1, 1989 (“JP ’338”).
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

4
SUMMARY
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Denied Granted
1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21
103(a) APA, JP ’338 1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21
103(a) APA, JP ’338 1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21

DENIED