Safran Landing Systems UK Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 19, 2021

2020003728 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)

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. 15/400,105 01/06/2017 Robert Kyle Schmidt WRS-101US 3491 23122 7590 01/19/2021 RATNERPRESTIA 2200 Renaissance Blvd Suite 350 King of Prussia, PA 19406 EXAMINER AUNG, SAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2021 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): PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT KYLE SCHMIDT Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, and 14–18, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Safran Landing Systems UK, Ltd.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to a shock strut and in particular to a shock strut for a landing gear assembly and a method of increasing the service life of a shock strut for a landing gear assembly.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claim 1 and method claim 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A shock strut for a landing gear assembly, the shock strut including: a hollow cylinder having a first bearing surface; and a piston having a second bearing surface, the piston being configured to move within the hollow cylinder such that the second bearing surface slides relative to the first bearing surface; wherein one of the first bearing surface and the second bearing surface includes a non-metallic material and the other of the first bearing surface and the second bearing surface includes cold worked titanium, wherein the cold worked titanium comprises burnished titanium. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Ernestus US 3,222,905 Dec. 14, 1965 Sato et al. (“Sato”) US 2001/0053460 A1 Dec. 20, 2001 Luce et al. (“Luce”) US 2007/0194172 A1 Aug. 23, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Luce and Ernestus.2 2 The Examiner also listed claim 4 as being rejected in view of Luce and Ernestus, but the body of the rejection is silent as to any rejection of this Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 3 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Luce, Ernestus, and Sato. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 14–18 as unpatentable over Luce and Ernestus Appellant argues all these claims together. See Appeal Br. 2–5. We select claim 1 for review, with claims 2, 6–9, and 14–18 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner relies primarily upon Luce for disclosing the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 3 (referencing Luce ¶ 24). However, the Examiner acknowledges that Luce “fails to explicitly disclose the titanium is cold worked titanium; and wherein the cold worked titanium comprises burnished titanium.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Ernestus for these limitations stating that Ernestus’ burnishing process “is [a] cold-work process” that improves the work surface and that “cold forming is done at room temperature.” Final Act. 4 (referencing Ernestus 11:1–10 and 67–75). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to utilize the cold worked titanium compris[ing] burnished titanium as taught by Ernestus in order to provide greatly improved surface of the work piece.” Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that “Ernestus does not describe the use of burnished titanium for a bearing counter face.” Appeal Br. 2. However, Ernestus was not relied on for teaching such usage, Luce was. See Final Act. 3–4 (referencing Luce ¶ 24). claim 4. See Final Act. 3–7. We thus understand that the inclusion of claim 4 in this rejection was in error. Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 4 Appellant also contends that a skilled person “would not apply the teaching of Ernestus to the landing gear assembly of Luce.” Appeal Br. 2. Appellant explains, “the shock absorbers that are the subject of Luce’s invention are subject to demanding performance requirements and high in- use loads.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant also states, “the piston and cylinder must be formed from thick, robust parts that can withstand landing loads and other operational loads.” Appeal Br. 3. There is no indication that the Examiner disputes these assertions, and the Examiner notes that “claim 1 did not recite the size of the shock strut” and hence “did not require any size of the piston and hollow cylinder.” Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner on this point. Appellant further contends that a “skilled person will only make changes to these features that the prior art tells the skilled person would improve their functionality to work as a bearing assembly.” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2 (stating that a skilled person would not modify Luce’s landing gear “contrary to [its] purpose”). On this point, it is noted that the Examiner has referenced column 11 of Ernestus which discusses burnishing a work surface because “[s]uch work hardening operations will greatly increase the tensile strength of the work, harden and toughen the surface and make it more resistant to failure.” Final Act. 4 (referencing Ernestus 11:1– 10). Appellant does not explain why a skilled person would not desire to employ the teachings of Ernestus “in order to provide greatly improved surface of the work piece” as expressed by the Examiner. Final Act. 4. In other words, Appellant fails to explain how improving the strength of Luce’s landing gear might be contrary to Luce’s purpose. Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 5 Thereafter, Appellant contends that “Ernestus deals specifically with working metal blanks that have insufficient structural strength to withstand normal forming techniques without wrinkling or buckling.” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 3 (“Ernestus provides no teaching that its process would provide an effective bearing surface”). As such, according to Appellant, “there would be no apparent need for using Ernestus’ methods in the context of a landing gear assembly” and Ernestus’ products “are clearly unsuitable for use as a landing gear shock absorber.” Appeal Br. 4. First, as explained above, the Examiner did not rely on Ernestus for teaching a landing gear shock absorber; the Examiner relied on Luce for this. See Final Act. 3–4. Further, regarding the blanks employed by Ernestus, Ernestus teaches that such blanks “are constantly worked and toughened while an initially relatively thick work blank is gradually reduced in thickness and expanded in area.” Ernestus 1:46–49. As such, Appellant does not explain how Ernestus’ titanium blanks (which start out “relatively thick”) “have insufficient structural strength” when Luce specifically teaches the use of titanium in a shock strut so as to dampen forces “such as during landing, taxiing or takeoff.” See, e.g., Luce ¶ 2. Further, and as noted by the Examiner above, “claim 1 did not recite the size of the shock strut” and hence “did not require any size of the piston and hollow cylinder.” Ans. 4. Appellant’s contention that “Ernestus also does not comment on how the process affects properties of the surface that dictate how effective it is as a bearing surface” is also not persuasive. Appeal Br. 5. This is because of the explicit statement, in Ernestus, that “I find that relatively brittle metals such as titanium can thus be worked with a high and uniform degree of success, without developing flaws or weaknesses in the wall structure and Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 6 actually with an increase in tensile and compressive strength.” Ernestus 8:71–75. To be clear, Appellant does not explain how an increase in compressive strength would not, likewise, improve its bearing capabilities. See also Ans. 6 (“claim 1 did not recite any wear of the cylinder and piston combination”). Appellant thereafter “respectfully submits that Luce and Ernestus are not properly combined because they are not analogous art.” Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner disagrees stating that Luce and Ernestus are inter-related because of “their use in aircraft and their use of the same material.” Ans. 7. Further, regarding the analogous art test3, the Examiner states that “Ernestus would [be] considered to be pertinent to the problem of using a titanium cylinder[] such as presented in Luce” because “[b]oth inventions use titanium tubes in similar environments (i.e. aircraft).” Ans. 8. Indeed, Luce is entitled “Aircraft Shock Strut having Improved Cylinder and Bearings” while Ernestus addresses the special needs of “high speed flight.” Ernestus 1:31–40. Accordingly, and in view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 14–18 as being obvious in view of Luce and Ernestus. We sustain their rejection. 3 See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appeal 2020-003728 Application 15/400,105 7 The rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Luce, Ernestus, and Sato Appellant does not separately argue the further rejection of dependent claim 4, which depends on the additional teachings of Sato. See Final Act. 7–8. We sustain its rejection. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6–9, 14–18 103 Luce, Ernestus 1, 2, 6–9, 14–18 4 103 Luce, Ernestus, Sato 4 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 14–18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED