Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13346213 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

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