Ex Parte Reinhardt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

13970483 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
0017909-US-AB(11-279-3) 7475
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/970,483 08/19/2013
52237 7590
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
03/16/2017
Gregory E. Reinhardt
03/16/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY E. REINHARDT,
ENZO DIBENEDETTO, and JASON W. MAZANEC
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
7, 9—15, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a turbofan engine bearing assembly and
bearing support. Spec. 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1 A turbofan engine comprising:
an engine case;
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
a gaspath through the engine case;
a fan having a circumferential array of fan blades;
a fan case encircling the fan blades radially outboard of the
engine case;
a plurality of fan case vanes extending outward from the
engine case to the fan case;
a front frame assembly comprising a plurality of vanes
extending radially across the gas path;
a shaft;
a transmission coupling the shaft to a fan shaft to drive the
fan;
a bearing assembly coupling the shaft to the front frame
assembly, the bearing assembly being a duplex bearing
assembly; and
a bearing support extending aftward and radially inward
from the front frame assembly to the bearing assembly.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coplin US 4,827,712 May 9, 1989
Sheridan US 6,223,616 B1 May 1,2001
VanDuyn US 2005/0254945 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Orlando US 2008/0098717 A1 May 1,2008
Kondo US 2009/0246018 A1 Oct. 1, 2009
Udall EP 2 194 238 A1 June 9, 2010
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, and 11—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Coplin and Udall.
(II) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Coplin, Udall, and Sheridan.
(III) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Coplin, Udall, Sheridan, and Kondo.
2
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
(IV) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Orlando and Udall.
(V) Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando, Udall, and VanDuyn.
OPINION
Rejection (I)
The Examiner finds that Coplin discloses most of the features recited
in claim 1, but does not disclose a duplex bearing assembly. Final Act. 2—3.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Udall discloses “a duplex bearing assembly
that attaches to a frame and accommodates flexures and loads in a reduced
radial width,” and it would have been obvious to modify Coplin to include
such a duplex bearing in light of these flexibility and size benefits. Final
Act. 3.
Appellants assert Udall “discloses a particular substitution of a duplex
bearing for a single thrust bearing in a particular situation which appears
different from the location the Office purports to substitute in Coplin
(presumably element 88 in Coplin).” Appeal Br. 6. In this regard,
Appellants argue that “Bearing 88 in Coplin involves a different location in
a different layout of engine (aft of a transmission) than the Udall bearings
(supporting the fan) mentioned by the Office. The Office has not
demonstrated analogous loads.” Final Act. 7.
Appellants also attack the second portion of the Examiner’s reasoning
for the proposed modification, stating, “In addition to not having analogous
loads, the asserted radial width consideration has not been established as
3
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
analogous due to the different positioning of the Coplin bearing 88 behind a
transmission that takes up radial width.” Appeal Br. 7—8.
The Examiner replies that, as applied in the rejection of claim 1, “the
duplex bearing arrangement of Udall... is not limited to the front bearing of
a gas turbine. The Figure labeled ‘Prior art’ represents an example of a
known bearing, and the invention is not limited to just this specific area.”
Ans. 9 (citing Udall H 1, 2, 19). The Examiner also finds that, based on the
support structure for bearing 88 in Coplin, the bearing is subject to both
radial and axial loads, and therefore, experiences loads analogous to those
applied to the bearing in Udall. Ans. 9. The Examiner also reiterates the
benefits of the duplex bearing taught by Udall. Ans. 9—10.
In reply, Appellants state, “the mere assertion that something is not
limited to a particular embodiment, is not a license to go beyond what is
actually taught by the disclosure. The Office has made no findings
regarding what is taught.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants assert that the bearings
in Coplin and Udall are in different locations in their respective engines, the
engines themselves in these references are different, and the Examiner has
not established that radial compactness would have been of any benefit in
Coplin. See Reply Br. 2—3.
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner applies
the general teaching of replacement of one bearing with another bearing (a
duplex bearing) to achieve the benefits Udall explicitly teaches are
associated with a duplex bearing. Accordingly, the Examiner’s statement
that the duplex bearing taught by Udall is “not limited” to any specific
application is reasonable because it responds to Appellants’ assertion that
the location of the duplex bearing in Udall is different from the location of
4
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
the bearing in Coplin. See Ans. 9; see also Appeal Br. 7. In other words,
the Examiner’s finding that Udall’s bearing is not limited to any specific
location is a statement pointing out a weakness in Appellants’ argument
rather than a statement of the basis for the Examiner’s rejection.1
As to the Examiner’s determination that the proposed modification
would “enable the engine to flex sufficiently while accommodating stresses
within the engine in a reduced radial width” (Final Act. 3), we find that this
reasoning is supported by rational underpinnings. As the Examiner noted
(see Ans. 9—10), Udall describes certain benefits of the use of a duplex
bearing as a replacement for a single bearing. In this regard, Udall states,
“Aspects of the present invention provide a bearing arrangement which has a
compact size and which is provided with minimal bearing design size,
bearing element size and bearing arrangement radius whilst maximizing total
thrust bearing capacity in terms of shared thrust load or loadshare.” Udall
135; see also id. 14 (discussing the problem of excessive size of large
capacity thrust bearings) and 129 (discussing the reduced “radial extent” of
the duplex bearing). As for whether the Examiner established that radial
width, or the reduction thereof, would have been a “consideration” (see
Appeal Br. 7—8), as noted above, the saving of space in a gas turbine engine
is explicitly discussed in Udall, and we see no reason why such space-saving
considerations would not also be applicable to the gas turbine engine of
Coplin.
1 It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
5
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
As for whether the loading on the bearing of Udall is analogous to the
loading on the bearing in Coplin, the Examiner’s finding that Coplin’s
bearing is subject to axial and radial loads (Ans. 9) is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. In this regard, we note that support (gear
housing) 82 in Coplin extends diagonally in Figure 1.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments for the patentability
of claim 1, but the Examiner has the better position. Accordingly, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants rely on the same arguments
for the patentability of claims 2, 4—7, 9, and 11—14 (see Final Act. 8), and
these claims fall with claim 1.
Rejections (II) and (III)
Appellants make no new arguments for the patentability of either of
claims 3 or 10. See Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, these claims fall with
claim 1.
Rejection (IV)
The Examiner relies on Udall to teach the use of a duplex bearing and
applies the same rationale for incorporating this teaching in the structure of
Orlando. Final Act. 8. Appellants make substantially similar arguments
against the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Udall as the
arguments made above regarding Rejection (I). See Appeal Br. 8—9; Reply
Br. 3^4. For the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Orlando and Udall.
Rejection (V)
Appellants rely on the same arguments for the patentability of claims
19 and 20 as those made for claim 15 (see Appeal Br. 9), and for the same
6
Appeal 2015-003322
Application 13/970,483
reasons, we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Orlando, Udall, and VanDuyn.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7, 9—15, 19, and 20 is
affirmed.
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
7