Yann Simonneaux et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2020

2019003153 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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 07/28/2020
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
BURCH, MELODY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2020 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, MESSIER-DOWTY LIMITED,
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 APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16–21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Safran Landing Systems UK, Ltd. as the sole real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification relates to shock absorbers, including for use in
aircraft landing gear. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶1, 3.
The Claims
Claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16–21 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claims 6
and 15 are objected to. Id. at 7. No other claims are pending. Id. at 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An aircraft landing gear shock absorber
comprising:
a first body slidably coupled to a second body via a first
bearing such that the bodies can move relative to one another in
a linear fashion to change the shock absorber between a
relatively extended condition and a relatively compressed
condition, the first bearing being provided on one of the bodies
and defining a first bearing surface arranged to move in sliding
engagement with a first counter-face portion of the other one of
the bodies as the shock absorber is extended and compressed;
a first array of one or more magnets associated with the
first body; and
a second array of one or more magnets associated with
the second body, the first and second magnet arrays being
arranged to magnetically interact with one another to absorb
compression or extension loads applied to the shock absorber,
wherein the first bearing surface and the first counter-face
portion each has a noncircular cross section profile such that the
first bearing surface and the first counter-face portion can be
brought into mutual engagement to inhibit axial rotation of the
first body relative to the second body and wherein the assembly
comprises a second bearing defining a second bearing surface
arranged to move in sliding engagement with a second counter-
face portion as the shock absorber is extended and compressed.
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

3
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The sole rejection before us is: claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, and 16–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over APA2 and JP ’338.3 Final
Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the rejection of all claims together. Appeal Br. 3–
11. We choose claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner found that APA -- “a known landing gear including a
shock strut” (Spec. ¶27) -- teaches all of the subject matter of claim 1 except
that (1) whereas APA employs fluid damping, claim 1 requires magnetic
force damping; and (2) whereas APA employs circular cross section profiles
for the first bearing surface and the first counter-face portion, claim 1
requires such profiles to be noncircular. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Spec. Fig. 1).
The Examiner found that JP ‘338 teaches, in the context of automobile
applications, a shock absorber having both claim features missing from the
APA. Final Act. 3–4 (citing JP ’338 Figs. 2–3); see also id. at 7
(acknowledging that JP ’338 discloses an “automobile shock absorber”).
The Examiner concluded:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the invention to have
modified the fluid damping function of the shock absorber of
APA to have been magnetic including a first and second array of

2 The Examiner identifies 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)).
3 JPS643338 (A), published Sept. 1, 1989 (“JP ’338”).
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

4
magnets as recited and, as taught by JP'338, in order to provide
an alternate means of generating shock absorption to help ensure
smooth landings [and] to have modified the geometry of the first
and second bearing surfaces of the shock absorber of APA to
have been non-circular, in view of the teachings of JP'338, in
order to provide a way of minimizing certain movements of the
two bodies relative to each other.
Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant argues “there is no proper motivation to combine the cited
art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant points out
that “JP'338 describes an automotive shock absorber that employs magnet to
magnet interaction and appears to have a non-circular interface” but “does
not teach or suggest an aircraft landing gear shock absorber.” Id. at 4
(emphasis added). Appellant then challenges the rationales provided by the
Examiner in both the Final Action as well as an October 10, 2018, Advisory
Action. Id. at 4–11. As discussed below, the rationales offered in the Final
Action are adequate and, in conjunction with the Examiner’s other fact
findings, support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See, e.g.,
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying facts[, including the
Graham factors and] whether there was a reason to combine certain
references.”).
With respect to modifying APA’s damping means from fluid damping
to magnetic force damping, the Final Action provides the following
rationale: “to provide an alternate means of generating shock absorption to
help ensure smooth landings.” Final Act. 3–4. Appellant argues that this
rationale is insufficient here because the modification would not have
yielded predictable results. Appeal Br. 4. The results would not have been
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

5
predictable, Appellant argues, because “a landing gear shock absorber
carries much greater loads than automobiles experience, and is not isolated
from lateral loads like an automotive shock absorber is.” Id. at 5.
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'338 to select the appropriate magnets to achieve an
appropriate magnet-to-magnet interaction” for an aircraft application. Id.
at 9–10.
Appellant filed a Reply Brief but it does not respond cogently to the
Examiner’s point. Instead, Appellant merely generalizes that “the forces
encountered by shock absorbers within automobile suspension systems are
not comparable to the significant forces encountered by landing gear shock
absorbers” because “automobiles do not leave the ground and land during
normal use.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s challenge to the Examiner’s rationale
for modifying APA from fluid damping to magnetic force damping in view
of JP ’338 does not apprise us of error.
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

6
With respect to modifying APA’s cross section profiles for the first
bearing surface and the first counter-face portion from circular to
noncircular, the Final Action provides the following rationale: “to provide a
way of minimizing certain movements of the two bodies relative to each
other.” Final Act. 4. 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.
The Examiner rebuts Appellant’s first point by noting that Appellant
obviously surmised what was meant by “certain movements” as evidenced
by Appellant’s further arguments. Ans. 10. In any event, and to the extent
any clarification were needed, the Examiner states that his rejection was
referring to “rotational movement of one sliding member relative to the other
sliding member.” Id. Such movement falls within the scope of the phrase
“axial rotation of the first body relative to the second body,” as recited in
claim 1.
The Examiner rebuts Appellant’s second point, finding “it is old and
well-known in the art for systems to provide redundant or backup means in
case one means fails or to provide reinforcement to accommodate greater
capacities.” Ans. 10 (providing, as an example, the use of redundant sealing
means to prevent leakage of damping fluid).
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rebuttal on either point.
See generally Reply Br. Appellant’s challenge to the Examiner’s rationale
for modifying APA’s cross section profiles for the first bearing surface and
Appeal 2019-003153
Application 15/200,190

7
the first counter-face portion from circular to noncircular in view of JP ’338
does not apprise us of error.
For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as
that of claims 2–5, 7–12, 14, and 16–21, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21
103(a) APA, JP ’338 1–5, 7–12,
14, 16–21

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