United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 4, 2020

2019003135 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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. 14/208,255 03/13/2014 James L. McClellan IV 67097-2481PUS1;71257US02 3890 54549 7590 08/04/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2020 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 JAMES L. MCCLELLAN IV, GARY L. GROGG, and GARTH J. VDOVIAK JR. ____________ Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, 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 1–20, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to “static structure fastened joints” in a gas turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A gas turbine engine static structure comprising: a joint having at least two flanges including first and second flanges, the first flange including a face extending axially proud of and between radially spaced apart undercuts that adjoin the face on a same side of the first flange, the undercuts provided on the first flange, the second flange abutting the face, and fasteners extending through the face, wherein the undercuts are recessed axially relative to the face. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Krautzig US 6,106,188 Aug. 22, 2000 Seda US 2003/0097844 A1 May 29, 2003 Moniz US 2008/0075590 A1 Mar. 27, 2008 Rouesne US 2012/0213629 A1 Aug. 23, 2012 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1–7 and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, and Seda. Final Act. 2–6. II. Claims 8–12 and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, Seda, and Rouesne. Id. at 6–9. Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 3 ANALYSIS Rejection I – Claims 1–7 and 13–15 as unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, and Seda The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from Moniz, Krautzig, and Seda renders obvious the subject matter recited in claims 1–7 and 13–15. See Final Act. 2–5. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning is insufficient to support the obviousness rejection. See Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s combination of Moniz and Krautzig “would not have been predictable to a person of skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 3. Upon review of the cited art, we agree with the Examiner that Moniz teaches “a gas turbine engine static structure comprising: a joint having at least two flanges including first and second flanges, [with] the first flange including a face and the second flange abutting the face.” Final Act. 2. We also agree that Moniz “fails to teach the face extending axially proud of and between radially spaced apart undercuts that adjoin the face on a same side of the first flange, the undercuts provided on the first flange, wherein the undercuts are recessed axially relative to the face.” Id. The Examiner found that Krautzig discloses the practice—“well known in the art”—to “provide undercuts at the corners of two joint partners in order to prevent cracks.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner then reasoned that “providing an undercut in the corner of a joint yields predictable results” because it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide undercuts at the corners of the first flange of Moniz . . . in order to reduce stress and prevent cracks, as taught by Krautzig.” Id. The Examiner further noted that “[w]hen the undercuts are Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 4 provided, the face will extend ‘axially proud of and between’ the undercuts because the undercuts of Krautzig extend into the corner in both the axial and radial directions.” Id. Appellant asserts that the results the Examiner finds from the combination of Moniz and Krautzig—reduced stress and preventing cracks (see Final Act. 2)—would not have been predictable because Moniz and Krautzig involve different load patterns. Appeal Br. 3. In particular, Appellant argues that Moniz (as a fastened connection) experiences loading in more directions than Krautzig. But we agree with the Examiner’s explanation that at least some of the same forces act upon the joints discussed in Moniz and Krautzig because the two “teach similar joint structures including flanges, bearing faces, and stress concentrating corners.” Ans. 8. The fact that Moniz may experience forces in more directions than Krautzig does not diminish the Examiner’s rationale that the two would experience at least some of the same forces. See id. at 3–6. And we agree with the Examiner that Appellant fails to explain why any differences in stress concentration would eliminate the benefit from the undercuts disclosed by Krautzig. See id. at 7–8. Appellant does not persuasively explain how the Examiner’s combination of incorporating a known first and second flange (from Moniz) with the undercuts to reduce stress and prevent cracking (from Krautzig) would have yielded unpredictable results or somehow been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 presumes not only common sense, but also skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 5 After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or the Examiner’s reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–7 and 13–15 based on the reasoned positions set forth therein, and in light of the Examiner’s thorough responses to Appellant’s arguments. See Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3–8. Rejection II – Claims 8–12 and 16–20 as unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, Seda, and Rouesne Regarding Rejection II, Appellant relies on the arguments presented with respect to Rejection I, discussed above, adding only that “Rouesne does not correct the problems with Moniz, Krautzig, and Seda with regard to the independent claims as described above.” Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, for the same reasons that Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I, these arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection II, which we likewise sustain. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, and Seda. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8–12 and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz, Krautzig, Seda, and Rouesne. Appeal 2019-003135 Application 14/208,255 6 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). CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 13–15 103(a) Moniz, Krautzig, Seda 1–7, 13–15 8–12, 16–20 103(a) Moniz, Krautzig, Seda, Rouesne 8–12, 16–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 AFFIRMED