Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2017

13242908 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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. 13/242,908 09/23/2011 Gabriel L. Suciu 57917US01-U73-012727 1944 12208 7590 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 09/21/2017 EXAMINER BURKE, THOMAS P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2017 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): U S PatDocket @ kinney. com amkoenck @ kinney. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU, CHRISTOPHER M. DYE, and BRIAN D. MERRY 1 Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 Technology Center 3700 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention is directed a forward mount assembly connecting a pylon to the intermediate case of a gas turbine engine. Abstract and Figures 1, 3 A and 3B of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corp. See App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 A forward mount assembly for connecting a pylon to an intermediate case of a gas turbine engine, comprising: a forward mount platform connected to the pylon and disposed adjacent the intermediate case, the forward mount platform configured to bear a load of the gas turbine engine; a whiffletree assembly directly connected to the forward mount platform through a first ball joint; and a first A-arm connected to a first side of the intermediate case and a second A-arm connected to a second opposing side of the intermediate case, wherein the first and second A-arms are directly mounted to the forward mount platform and mounted to opposing ends of the whiffletree, and wherein the first and second A-arms react a thrust load at the intermediate case substantially parallel to a centerline axis of the gas turbine engine.. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave (US 6,474,597) and Pasquer (US 2004/0251380). Answer 2, Final Act 2-4. The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, and Langley (US 5,078,342). Answer 2, Final Act 4. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief, dated November 11, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 9, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Final Office Action, mailed August 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”). 2 Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Langley, and Stuart (US 2011/0023450). Answer 2, Final Act 4—5. The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, and Loewenstein (US 2005/0067528). Answer 2, Final Act 5—6. The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, and Penda (US 2011/0127368). Answer 2, Final Act 6—9. The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Penda, and Langley (US 5,078,342). Answer 2, Final Act 9—10. The Examiner has rejected claims 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Penda, and Stuart. Answer 2, Final Act 10—11. The Examiner has rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Penda, and Loewenstein. Answer 2, Final Act 11. The Examiner has rejected claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, and Stuart. Answer 2, Final Act 11-13. The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Stuart, and Langley. Answer 2, Final Act 13-14. 3 Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cazenave, Pasquer, Stuart, and Penda. Answer 2, Final Act 14. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 is in error as the cited art does not teach the features of a whiffletree assembly directly connected to a forward mount platform and a first and second A- arms directly connected to the forward mount platform and the opposite ends of the whiffletree. App. Br. 11—22. Appellants’ arguments are directed to the Examiner’s application of the teachings of Cazenave to the claims in various office communications during the prosecution of the application. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner changed the interpretation of Cazenave based upon amendments to claim 1 which is erroneous as “[ajmendments to the claims do not change the scope and content of the art. App. Br 15. We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. Initially, this is a decision on appeal from the last decision of the Examiner. (See Notice of Appeal Filed September 9, 2015). Thus, the rejections before us are the rejections set forth in the Final Rejection dated August 13, 2015, to the extent the Examiner’s findings and rationale in that Office Action differ from prior Office actions, our decision is based upon the August 13, 2015 Office Action. Thus, while Appellants’ arguments directed to the Examiner’s findings and rationale in the prior Office actions is probative of the evolution of the prosecution, they are not persuasive of error in the rejection set forth in the August 13, 2015 Final Office Action. 4 Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 The Examiner in the Final Action, equates Appellants’ claimed forward mounting platform with Cazenave flange 30 and safety bracket 44 (i.e. the combined assembly of the two pieces). Final Act 2. The Examiner equates Appellants’ claimed whiffletree with Cazenave’s thrust balance beam item 36. Id. Finally, the Examiner equates Appellants’ claimed A- arm with Cazenave’s thrust links 42. Id. Given this mapping of the claim structure to the structure of Cazenave, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Cazenave teaches the features of a whiffletree assembly directly connected to a forward mount platform and a first and second A-arms directly connected to the forward mount platform and the opposite ends of the whiffletree as recited in representative claim 1. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument: Moreover, one of skill in the art would recognize that the flange 30, part of main bracket 2 and thus part of the primary load assembly 23, and safety bracket 44, part of the auxiliary load assembly 25, are necessarily separate. One of the skill in the art would understand that the primary and auxiliary load assemblies are distinct parts that cannot be combined without destroying the functionality and utility of Cazenave. App Br. 16. Representative claim 1 does not recite a limitation which precludes the forward mount platform from being made up of components attached together. Cazenave teaches that flange 30, to which safety bracket 44 is attached to by sandwiching it and bolting it to the pylon, is a part of main bracket 2. See Cazenave, Col. 4,11. 47-48, Col 5,11. 29-34. Further, Cazenave teaches flange 40, which is connected to the whiffletree via a pin, is also part of main bracket 2. See Col. 4,11. 62—66. The Examiner’s rejection does not rely upon the devices being combined to a single part (the Examiner appears to be equating the assembly of two parts to the claimed 5 Appeal 2016-005807 Application 13/242,908 forward mounting platform). However, even if the Examiner were considering the pieces to be combined to a single part, we do not consider the functionality to be destroyed. The functionality of the auxiliary mounting, to be unloaded under normal operation conditions and to take load under abnormal conditions, is provided by the clearance holes and associated safety pins, and not because the safety bracket 44 is a separate part from flange 30. Cazenave, Col. 2,11. 27—45, Col. 6,11. 7—15. We also note the safety bracket functionality of taking load is not limited to failure in the main bracket, as asserted by the Appellants (see page 11 of Appeal Brief), but also to help share the load with bracket 2 in extreme loading conditions. See Cazenave, col.7 11. 35—38. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2 and 9 grouped with claim 1. Appellants have not presented arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 through 8, and 10 through 20. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under 35U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6