United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2021000256 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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. 15/793,338 10/25/2017 Kevin Duffy 99600US01; 67097-3699PUS1 9037 54549 7590 08/02/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER WANG, YI-KAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEVIN DUFFY Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–22. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Raytheon Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification Appellant’s disclosure “relates to damping for a gas turbine engine, including damping rotatable components during engine operation.” Spec. ¶1. The Claims Claims 1–22 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below. 1. A damper assembly comprising: a first housing adjacent to a second housing that supports a rotatable gas turbine engine component, wherein one of the first and second housings is mechanically attached to a static structure, and another one of the first and second housings supports a bearing assembly; wherein the first housing defines first and second fluid passages, the first fluid passage coupled to a first valve; wherein one of the first and second housings defines first, second and third annular grooves that receive respective first, second and third seal members; wherein the first and second housings define a first annular damper cavity between the first and second seal members and in fluid communication with the first fluid passage, and define a second annular damper cavity between the second and third seal members and in fluid communication with the second fluid passage; and a spring member including an elongated body extending between a first end and a second end, the first end mechanically attached to the first housing, and the second end extending from the second housing. Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 3 The Examiner’s Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner made the following rejections: 1. claims 1–6, 8–11, and 13–21 as unpatentable over Steen2 and Buono3 (Final Act. 2)4; 2. claims 7 and 12 as unpatentable over Steen, Buono, and Stallone5 (id. at 14); and 3. claim 22 as unpatentable over Steen, Buono, and Stallone (id. at 15). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Appellant argues against the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 under one subheading and dependent claims 8, 13, and 18 under another subheading. Appeal Br. 4, 6. Appellant does not present arguments for the remaining dependent claims subject to this rejection, i.e., claims 2–6, 9, 11, 14–16, and 19–21. We choose claim 1 as representative for deciding the appeal as to the rejection of claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–17, and 19–21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may 2 US 2017/0307046 A1, published Oct. 26, 2017 (“Steen”). 3 US 4,046,430, issued Sept. 6, 1977 (“Buono”). 4 Although the Examiner’s heading for this rejection does not list claims 8, 9, 13, 18, and 21 (Final Act. 2), it is clear from the Examiner’s analysis that these claims are so rejected. Id. at 5 (rejecting claim 8), 6 (rejecting claim 9), 8 (rejecting claim 13), 11 (rejecting claim 18), and 12–13 (rejecting claim 21). 5 US 5,344,239, issued Sept. 6, 1994 (“Stallone”). Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 4 select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). We choose claim 8 for deciding the appeal as to the rejection of claims 8, 13, and 18. Id. Claims 1–6, 9–11, 14–17, and 19–21 The Examiner found that claim 1 discloses the subject matter of claim 1 except for the “spring member” limitation. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Steen Figs. 2–3). The Examiner found that Buono teaches such a spring member “to stabilize the damper and allow the damper perform properly without producing unstable, high amplitude response.” Id. at 3 (citing Buono 1:22–31, 1:34–37, Fig. 1). The Examiner determined: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steen to incorporate the teachings of Buono to add a spring member in certain area of damper assembly in order to stabilize the damper and allow the damper [to] perform properly without producing [an] unstable, high amplitude response. Id. at 4. Appellant argues that “[t]he rejection fails to establish that one would have been motivated to make the Examiner’s proposed modification.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant presents “two reasons” in support of this argument; those arguments generally are: (1) Steen does not need improvement; and (2) Buono’s damper would not have been viewed as transferable to Steen. Id. at 5–6. Appellant’s first reason for challenging the modification is that it “would provide no benefit since the Examiner asserts that Steen allegedly communicates and blocks flow to the annulus 234 and volume 226 to provide damping (see, e.g., Final at pp. 3 and 9–10).” Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 5 Appellant explains that the Examiner has failed to show that the damping already provided in Steen is insufficient such that there would be room for improvement by adding Buono’s spring. Id. This argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner cited Buono’s teaching of “provid[ing] an improved viscous damper for an intershaft bearing by incorporating a parallelly mounted spring which stabilizes said viscous damper.” Buono 1:34–37 (cited at Final Act. 3–4); see also Buono 1:22–31. “Even though Steen might not indicate that [its viscous] damper 140 would not perform properly or is not stabilized, the teaching of spring 40 in Buono still provides an improved damper performance since it is connecting with two housings to stabilize the housings during the operation.” Ans. 19. We find the Examiner’s rebuttal to Appellant’s argument more than adequate. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417(2007) (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation [of a known work], § 103 likely bars its patentability.”); cf. id. (“For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Further, the Examiner’s reasoning comports with the Federal Circuit’s recognition of “[t]he normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.” In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appellant’s second reason for challenging the modification is that “the alleged damper of Buono is utilized in a different context than the alleged damper of Steen.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant explains that neither “of the sleeve element 24 and the bearing retainer 26 of Buono is ‘mechanically Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 6 attached to a static structure’.” Id. This argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. First, it is an attack on Buono individually, whereas the rejection is based on a combination of prior art in which Steen, not Buono, is relied upon for disclosing “wherein one of the first and second housings is mechanically attached to a static structure,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Steen Fig. 2 (refs. 202, 214)); see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Second, that Buono lacks certain other limitations of claim 1 does not negate that it teaches a spring. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 (“[A reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). And, although Appellant advocates for limiting Buono’s teaching of a spring to the specific context of two rotating shafts, Appellant fails to show that incorporating such a spring in Steen would do more than yield a predicable result. See Appeal Br. 6 (“Steen’s damper is not utilized in the context of two rotating shafts, which Buono is specifically concerned.”); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). We have considered Appellant’s arguments but do not find them persuasive of Examiner error; the Examiner’s rejection is supported by an articulated reasoning with sufficient rational underpinning. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 2–6, 9–11, 14–17, and 19–21, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 7 Claims 8, 13, and 18 Although Appellant argues the rejection of these claims under a separate subheading, it presents essentially the same argument. See Appeal Br. 7 (“As noted above, the alleged damper of Steen is not utilized between two rotating shafts. Therefore, one would not modify Steen by incorporating a spring including elongated beams.”). For the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 8, as well as that of claims 13 and 18, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejections 2 and 3 Appellant argues against these rejections of claims 7, 12, and 22 merely on the basis of their ultimate dependency from claim 1 or claim 10 and the purported failure of Stallone to cure the alleged deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 7. But Appellant fails to show such a deficiency. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 7, 12, and 22. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2021-000256 Application 15/793,338 8 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–11, 13–21 103 Steen, Buono 1–6, 8–11, 13–21 7, 12 103 Steen, Buono, Stallone 7, 12 22 103 Steen, Buono, Stallone 22 Overall outcome 1–22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED