Ex Parte Leonard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

14207860 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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. 14/207,860 03/13/2014 Nicholas Leonard 63929US02; 5941 67097-2149US1 54549 7590 09/05/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER LIU, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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 NICHOLAS LEONARD, SOHAIL AHMED, AND CHRISTOPHER WAITKUS Appeal 2017-003588 Application 14/207,860 Technology Center 3600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1,3, and 4 which represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a mount between and oil tank and an engine wall. See Spec. 13. Appeal 2017-003588 Application 14/207,860 Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. An engine comprising: an oil tank mounted to an engine wall, with clevis ears formed on both said oil tank and a mount bracket secured to said engine wall, and a link connecting said mount bracket clevis ears to said oil tank clevis ears, said link having a pair of spherical bearings providing a connection allowing movement between said link and said oil tank clevis ears, and said link and mount bracket clevis ears; and a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said mount bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said spherical bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis ears and mount bracket clevis ears. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1,3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as Sadil et al. (USP 5,435,124 issued July 25, 1995) in view of Dunstan et al. (USP 5,860,623 issued Jan. 19, 1999). Final Act. 2—7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Sadil and Dunstan teaches a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said mount bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said spherical bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis 2 Appeal 2017-003588 Application 14/207,860 ears and mount bracket clevis ears as recited in claim 1. We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Dunstan do not teach or suggest a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears. App. Br. 3, Reply. Br. 2. The Examiner appears to acknowledge that the cited portion of Dunstan alone does not teach this element as claimed. Ans. 4—5. Instead, in the Answer, the Examiner points to portions of Sadil (e.g., Sadil Fig. 1, 30, 42) in combination with Dunstan, but the Examiner does not explain the relevance of these portions of Sadil or explain sufficiently how these portions teach the claimed elements. Id. In particular, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how elements 45 or 53 of Dunstan, which the Examiner cites as teaching the stiffening elements (Final Act. 3, Ans. 4) relate to the claimed clevis ears, and which portion of the figures the Examiner relies on to show the clevis ears, or the stiffening elements claimed “positioned on an outer side” of the clevis ears. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner has not shown Sadil and Dunstan, taken alone or in proper combination, teaches or suggests a pair of stiffening elements each connecting one of said mount bracket clevis ears to one of said oil tank clevis ears, with said stiffening elements being positioned on an outer side of said mount bracket clevis ears and said oil tank clevis ears, with said spherical bearings being positioned between said oil tank clevis ears and mount bracket clevis ears as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, or dependent claims 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 3 Appeal 2017-003588 Application 14/207,860 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, and 4 is reversed. REVERSED 4