Ex Parte McCune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

13346120 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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. 13/346,120 01/09/2012 Michael E. McCune 48509US02; 7261 67097-632PUS2 54549 7590 03/22/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3659 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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 MICHAEL E. MCCUNE, LAWRENCE E. PORTLOCK, and FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ Appeal 2015-005358 Application 13/346,120 Technology Center 3600 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 3 and 12—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the following applications as having related appeals: 11/504,220 (Issued, Appeal 2012-000419); 13/486,766 (Appeal 2015003423 Decision rendered); 13/486,810 (Awaiting Appeal Decision, Appeal 2015- 004245); 13/361,987 (Abandoned, Appeal withdrawn by Examiner); 13/446,312 (Abandoned, Appeal 2014-000917 dismissed); 13/364,798 (Abandoned, Appeal 2013-004921); 13/363,154 (Abandoned, Appeal 2014- 002714 dismissed); and 12/377,623 (Notice of Appeal Filed) Appeal 2015-005358 Application 13/346,120 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine with geared architecture. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A geared architecture for a gas turbine engine comprising: a fan shaft; a frame which supports said fan shaft; a gear system which drives said fan shaft, said gear system including an epicyclic gear train having a carrier supporting intermediate gears that mesh with a rotatable sun gear, and a split ring gear surrounding and meshing with said intermediate gears, said split ring gear including a radially inner toothed side, a radially outer non-toothed side, and a plurality of radial channels that, respectively, open at a first channel end to said radially inner toothed side and at a second channel end to said radially outer non-toothed side; a torque frame which at least partially supports said gear system; and an input coupling to said gear system. REJECTIONS2 Claims 1—3, 16—20 and 23—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan (US 6,223,616 Bl, iss. May 1, 2001) in view of Lindgren (US 3,352, 178, iss, Nov. 14, 1967). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan, Lindgren, and Seda et al. (US 6,732,502 B2, iss. May 11, 2004). 2 Any outstanding new matter objections appear to have been withdrawn. App. Br. 3. 2 Appeal 2015-005358 Application 13/346,120 Claims 13, 14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan, Lindgren, and Dudley (“Gear Handbook: The Design, Manufacture, and Application of Gears”, Page 3—15). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan, Lindgren, Rice (US 4,896,499, iss. Jan. 30, 1990) and Mowill (US 5,081,832, iss. Jan. 21, 1992). OPINION Arguing all rejections based on claim 1, Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s proposal to modify Sheridan’s ring gear 51 so as to omit spline teeth 53. App. Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2—3. The Examiner cites Lindgren as demonstrating direct coupling of a ring gear to a mounting collar. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants point out that in Sheridan, assigned to the real party in interest in the present appeal, the star gear carrier 17 is fixed and the rotatable ring gear provides the output torque. App. Br. 4 (citing Sheridan col. 3,1. 59; col. 5,11. 1—5, 30—33). Appellants contend that fixing the ring gear directly to a mounting collar would prevent torque transmission, thereby rendering Sheridan inoperable. App. Br. 3^4. This argument mischaracterizes the Examiner’s proposed modification which involves only direct rotational coupling of the ring to its mounting arrangement and not fixation of the ring itself. Ans. 9—10. The Examiner correctly points out that the purpose of Sheridan’s gear is torque transmission and speed reduction and that could be readily achieved by substituting spline 53 with a direct, non-toothed, coupling. Ans. 9—10. Spline 53 may, for example, allow for some axial displacement or misalignment and allow for a greater degree of disassembly during maintenance, but the gear’s main purpose could still be achieved if the ring gear mounting structure is a direct, non-toothed, 3 Appeal 2015-005358 Application 13/346,120 coupling. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate any or all reasons to combine teachings. See Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullity its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). The fact that incorporating Lindgren’s teachings into Sheridan may yield a structure very similar to that disclosed in Appellants’ disclosure (Reply Br. 2—3) does not, without more, evidence improper reliance on hindsight. The Examiner demonstrated the constituent claim elements were known in the art and the Examiner’s stated motivation for the proposed combination, to “reduce the number of parts in the gear train, to ease assembly and to potentially simplify the manufacturing process of the ring gear components” (Final Act. 4), is uncontroverted. It is additionally noted that, to the extent Appellants argue otherwise, Sheridan itself would be reasonably regarded as acknowledging the relevance of fixed ring arrangements to fixed star gear carrier arrangements. See, e.g., Sheridan col. 4,11. 29—35. Both variations are notoriously well-known in epicyclic gearing. See, e.g., Dudley p. 3—15. As the Examiner correctly points out, torque could be transmitted and speed reduced, as is the intended purpose of Sheridan’s gear, with a direct, non-toothed, ring gear mounting arrangement. Ans. 9—10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. 4 Appeal 2015-005358 Application 13/346,120 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5