Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13622632 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
13/622,632 09/19/2012 JinQuan Xu PA-0022852-US 3939
11943 7590
0""Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
06/02/2017 EXAMINER
RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
uspto @ osheagetz. com
shenry @ osheagetz. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINQUAN XU
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,6321
Technology Center 3600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, 12, 14, and 21—23. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,632
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a lubrication system for a
gas turbine engine.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject matter of
the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A lubricant tank, comprising:
a lubricant tank body;
a lubricant tank discharge passageway at least partially
within said lubricant tank body, wherein said lubricant tank
discharge passageway includes a sidewall and an opening
through said sidewall, and wherein said opening is configured
to allow lubricant transfer between said lubricant tank discharge
passageway and said lubricant tank body; and
a porous media inserted within said opening.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1,2, 5—8, 11, 12, 14, and 21—23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sheridan
al. (US 8,020,665 B2; issued Sept. 20, 2011) (hereinafter “Sheridan”) and
Thivierge et al. (US 2011/0048856 Al; published Mar. 3, 2011) (hereinafter
“Thivierge”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings,
conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the August 27,
2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—10) and (2) the May 25, 2016
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—5). We highlight and address, however,
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
2
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,632
Combining Sheridan and Thivierge
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine the relevant
teachings of Sheridan and Thivierge. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. As to
Sheridan, Appellant argues it teaches a lubricant tank (i.e., auxiliary tank or
reservoir 48) having no rotating elements within the tank, and thus,
Sheridan’s expelled oil “will have much different flow dynamics” than oil
directly expelled from a gear train having rotating elements present (e.g.,
Thivierge’s embodiments). App. Br. 10 (citing Sheridan Figs. 7—8); see also
Reply Br. 2 (arguing Thivierge’s expelled oil flows along a generally
tangential trajectory and changes trajectory as it flows to the drain, in
contrast to Sheridan’s expelled oil flows along a generally common
trajectory without an abrupt change).
As to Thivierge, Appellant argues its teachings relate to using a
porous element to “reduc[e] the velocity of and calm[] lubricant expelled
from [a cavity having] rotating components.” App. Br. 10 (citing Thivierge
1128, 34—35); see also App. Br. 9 (quoting Thivierge 12 (“[T]he used
lubricant expelled from the rotating components ... has an increased velocity
and circulates along a swirling path, such that the used lubricant typically
has a tendency to remain within the cavity containing the rotating
component for a given period of time instead of circulating directly to the
drains of the scavenge system.'”)). Appellants contend, thus, “a person of
skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the teachings of
Sheridan and Thivierge . . . [because] there are no rotating components
within the reservoir 48 of Sheridan.” App. Br. 10.
The Examiner finds the combination of Sheridan and Thivierge are
properly combined. Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Sheridan
3
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,632
teaches or suggests “[t]he expelled lubricant will enter tank 48 with high
velocity and with turbulent flow dynamics.” Ans. 2 (citing Sheridan col. 3,
11. 37—39 (“During normal operation, rotation of the gears expels lubricant
radially outwardly, and with a high tangential velocity, into the lubricant
recovery gutter 26.”)). The Examiner finds Thivierge teaches or suggests
including a porous media in a lubrication system similar to Sheridan’s to
reduce the expelled oil’s velocity and turbulence. Final Act. 4 (citing
Thivierge 135, Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to provide Thivierge’s porous media at
Sheridan’s pore openings to “reduce the velocity of the lubricant circulating
through the openings in order to decrease the overall volume of lubricant
required within the system and reduce the total engine weight.” Final Act. 4
(citing Thivierge 135).
We find the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning [(e.g., reduce
oil turbulence and velocity)] with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reasoning provides
insufficient motivation to combine the relevant teachings of Sheridan and
Thivierge. See Final Act. 4; KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
4
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,632
Appellant casts the references’ teachings too narrowly without
addressing persuasively why one of ordinary skill in the art would limit
Thivierge’s teachings to tanks having rotating components. See In re
Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re
Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)) (“The use of patents as
references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own
inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part
of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). We also find the
evidence of record insufficient to persuade us that the expelled oil flow
dynamics in Sheridan’s system would be so different from the expelled oil
flow dynamics in Thivierge’s system so as to negate the benefits of
Thivierge’s teachings of using a porous element to reduce oil turbulence and
velocity. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Our above findings and reasoning regarding combining Sheridan and
Thivierge apply to Appellant’s arguments made with respect to independent
claims 1, 5, 8, and 14.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,5,8, and 14, as well as claims 2, 6, 7, 11,
12, and 21—23, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their
patentability.
5
Appeal 2016-007393
Application 13/622,632
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, 12,
14, and 21-23.
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