Ex Parte Suciu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 201813346213 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/346,213 01109/2012 Gabriel L. Suciu 54549 7590 03/28/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 45939US05;67097-077PUS5 8329 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUYHANG NGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 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 GABRIELL. SUCIU, BRIAN MERRY, JAMES W. NORRIS, and STEVEN J. SIRICA Appeal2016-005918 1 Application 13/346,213 2 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-13, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed November 18, 2015) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 13, 2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 22, 2016), Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Sept. 15, 2015), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 17, 2015). 2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-005918 Application 13/346,213 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention "relates to turbine engines, and more particularly[,] to a variable fan inlet guide vane for a turbine engine, such as a tip turbine engine." Spec. i-f 3. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gearbox support assembly for a turbine engine, compnsmg: an epicyclic gear arrangement; a first tapered bearing and a second tapered bearing spaced apart from the first tapered bearing, the first tapered bearing and the second tapered bearing supporting the epicyclic gear arrangement, wherein the first tapered bearing is located axially forward along a line parallel to a central axis of the epicyclic gear arrangement and immediately adjacent to a forward side of the epicyclic gear arrangement, and the second tapered bearing is located axially aft the first tapered bearing along the line and immediately adjacent to an aft side of the epicyclic gear arrangement. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stegherr (US 6,364,805 Bl, iss. Apr. 2, 2002), McKibbin (US 5,466,198, iss. Nov. 14, 1995), and Burner (WO 2005/047720 Al, pub. May 26, 2005). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stegherr, McKibbin, Burner, and Carter (US 5,584,660, iss. Dec. 17, 1996). 2 Appeal 2016-005918 Application 13/346,213 ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2 and 4-7 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's obviousness determination lacks sufficient rationale for determining that claim 1 is obvious over Stegherr, McKibbin, and Carter. See App. Br. 4---6; see also Reply Br. 2-3. In rejecting claim 1 under§ 103(a), the Examiner cites Stegherr as disclosing substantially all the limitations of the claim. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner acknowledges that Stegherr does not disclose, in part, that the first and second bearings 27, 28 are tapered, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 4. However, the Examiner finds that Burner teaches first and second tapered bearings 6, 8 in an "analogous assembly." Id. And the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to substitute Stegherr's bearings 27, 28 with Burner's tapered bearings 6, 8 to obtain predictable results of carrying both radial and thrust loads. Id. at 5. Yet, Burner's bearings are for a final drive of a track-laying vehicle, such as a bulldozer, which are subject to high torque and forces applied to the housings. See Burner 1: 11-13, 31-33, 2: 19-29. Bearing 6 is in an inboard position, and bearing 8 is in an outboard position relative to a track of the vehicle. Id. at 2:28-29. Bearings 6 and 8 "take the form of single row tapered roller bearings mounted in opposition so that together they carry both radial loads and thrust loads in both axial directions." Id. at 3:26-28. In contrast, Stegherr describes an epicyclic gear arrangement coupled to be driven by the turbine section of a turbine engine. See Stegherr 2:32-65. The arrangement includes a fixed bearing 30 facing the propeller, and a movable 3 Appeal 2016-005918 Application 13/346,213 bearing 31 facing the engine. Id. at 3: 11-16. The fixed bearing 30, which is a combination of roller bearing 27 and ball bearing 29, absorbs axial forces generated by the propeller as well as a radial load, whereas, the movable bearing 31, which comprises roller bearing 28, only experiences radial load and is not as stressed. Id. at 3:16-22. Put differently, the bearings of Stegherr and Burner are used in different types of machines, have different orientations and spatial relationships with respect to different mechanical elements, are subject to different forces, loads, and operating conditions, and serve different purposes. See App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. In response, the Examiner finds that Burner's bearing assembly "does not depend on the environment, or the physical structure, in which it is placed," but instead depends only on the spacing of the bearings with each other. Ans. 6. However, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 2-3) that this finding is not sufficiently supported by Burner. See, e.g., Burner 8: 1-5 (describing environment and physical location in which the bearings are placed as relevant to how the loads are produced and transferred). As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's determination that the proposed modification is a simple substitution with predictable results is not adequately supported. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4--7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claims 8 and 15 and Dependent Claims 9 and 11-13 Independent claims 8 and 15 recite language similar to claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 suffers from the same deficiency described above with reference to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent 4 Appeal 2016-005918 Application 13/346,213 claims 8 and 15, and claims 9 and 11-13, which depend from claim 8, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. Dependent Claim 16 Claim 16 depends from independent claim 8. The Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 16 does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation