United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2021004657 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 16/125,875 09/10/2018 Daniel L. Gysling 104023US01;67097-3848PUS1 9857 54549 7590 01/31/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER BURKE, THOMAS P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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 DANIEL L. GYSLING and PHILIP ANDREW VARNEY Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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 1-9 and 21. See Appeal Br. 5, 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Reduced Axial Space Self-pressurizing Damper.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. See Appeal Br. 12-13 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 1, below: 1. A bearing assembly comprising: a bearing housing comprising a first bearing housing surface and a second bearing housing surface where the first bearing housing surface and the second bearing housing surface are substantially axially parallel relative to a rotor centerline; a first piston ring groove in the first bearing housing surface, a second piston ring groove in the first bearing housing surface, a first piston ring disposed in the first piston ring groove and a second piston ring disposed in the second piston ring groove; a damper including a first outer surface radially adjacent to and opposing the first bearing housing surface; a second outer surface radially adjacent to and opposing the second bearing housing surface; a third piston ring groove in the second outer surface, a fourth piston ring groove in the second outer surface, a third piston ring disposed in the third piston ring groove and a fourth piston ring disposed in the fourth piston ring groove; and the bearing housing comprising a damping fluid passage configured to provide a damping fluid from an outlet to a first gap radially between the first outer surface and the first bearing housing surface and to a second gap radially between the second outer surface and the second bearing housing surface. Claims App. 12. Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hibner US 5,110,257 May 5, 1992 DiBenedetto US 2018/0051706 A1 Feb. 22, 2018 Batile2 FR 2,965,858 A1 Apr. 13, 2012 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-6, 21 103 DiBenedetto, Batile 7-9 103 DiBenedetto, Batile, Hibner See Final Act. 4-11. ANALYSIS I. Claims 1-6 and 21 as Unpatentable Over DiBenedetto and Batile Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of claims 2-6 and 21. See Appeal Br. 5-11. We treat claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 2-6 and 21 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). a. Examiner’s Rejection of Claim 1 In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that DiBenedetto teaches several of the claimed limitations, citing in part DiBenedetto’s Figure 3. See Final Act. 4-7. We reproduce DiBenedetto’s Figure 3, below: 2 Our citations to text of Batile are to the record’s 8-page English-language translation, lines 1-312. Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 4 Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 5 Figure 3 depicts a cross-sectional view of DiBenedetto’s thrust bearing system. DiBenedetto ¶ 11. As this figure relates to the claims, Figure 3 shows first fluid passage 146, second fluid passage 148, and squeeze film oil damper 150. Id. ¶ 21. In particular, a small gap is present between bearing support ring 68, case 94, and annular member 96, forming second fluid passage 148. Id. ¶ 29. Second fluid passage 148 extends from first fluid passage 146 to fluid port 98 and first seal 70 is disposed around annular member 96 of intermediate frame 57. Id. First seal 70 (piston seal) defines an end of second fluid passage 148 and forces oil flowing in second fluid passage 148 into fluid port 98 of annular member 96 of intermediate frame 57. Second seal 72 and third seal 74 (also piston seals) extend circumferentially around second annular body 130 of bearing support ring 68. Id. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that DiBenedetto teaches, in relevant part, [B]earing housing (at 96) comprising a damping fluid passage (148, 98) configured to provide a damping fluid (Paragraph 0028) from an outlet (from 148) to a first gap (between 96 and 136; see Figure 3) radially between the first outer surface (the surface of 136 facing 96) and the first bearing housing surface (the surface of 96 facing 136) and to a second gap (between 96 and 130; see Figure 3) radially between the second outer surface (the surface of 130 facing 96) and the second bearing housing surface (the surface of 96 facing 130). Final Act. 5. The Examiner further submits an annotated version of a portion of DiBenedetto’s Figure 3, which we reproduce, below: Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 6 Final Act. 7. The above annotated portion of Figure 3 depicts the Examiner’s identification of DiBenedetto’s first, third, and fourth piston ring grooves. See id. The Examiner acknowledges that “DiBenedetto does not teach a second piston ring groove in the first bearing housing surface and a second piston ring disposed in the second piston ring groove.” Id. To satisfy the “second piston ring disposed in the second piston ring groove,” the Examiner relies on Batile, citing in part Batile’s Figure 7. See Final Act. 6. We reproduce Batile’s Figure 7, below: Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 7 Figure 7 depicts a damper in compression. Batile ll. 161-162. Specifically, Figure 7 shows first sealing segment 9’ in first annular groove 7’ and second sealing element 10’ in second annular groove 8’. See id. ll. 229-230. The Examiner finds that Batile teaches “first piston ring” 9’ in “first piston groove” 7’ and “second piston ring” 10’ in “second piston groove” 8’. See Final Act. 6. In combining the teachings of DiBenedetto and Batile, the Examiner reasons that It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DiBenedetto to include a first piston ring groove in a first housing surface and a second piston ring groove in the first housing surface, a first piston ring disposed in the first piston ring groove and a second piston ring disposed in the second piston ring groove, as taught by Batile, in order to more effectively dampen the radial vibrations in a rotary shaft (see lines 122-125 on Page 4) by moving first and second sealing segments to allow a leakage rate in overpressure of the liquid film before the first sealing segment and to allow relief of the underpressure in the Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 8 liquid film by supplying fluid forward of the second sealing segment (see lines 126-150 on Page 4). Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner further submits a second annotated version of a portion of DiBenedetto’s Figure 3 to illustrate the proposed modification (Final Act. 7), which we reproduce below: Annotated portion of Figure 3 depicts the proposed modification of DiBenedetto’s bearing system to include the first and second sealing elements as taught by Batile. See id. b. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not have modified DiBenedetto as the Examiner has done, and any modification “would not Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 9 provide the functions described by the Examiner.” See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2 (“one of skill in the art would not have reasonably expected the double seal ring structure alone to provide the alleged benefit within a completely different structure.”). Appellant explains that the benefit of Batile’s design, “to more effectively dampen the radial vibration,” “is tied to the entire invention of Batile.” See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2 (“the alleged benefit is associated with the entire structure of Batile, and the double piston rings alone do not achieve the benefit that the examiner alleges.”). In support of this argument, Appellant explains that Batile’s “pass- through configuration is essential to the proposed benefit taught by Batile,” as is “the position of the pass-through feature relative to the fluid inlet 22’.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further points out that DiBenedetto’s “seal 70 does not include pass[-]through features” and that the “absence of pass[-]through features is fundamental to the operation of seal 70.” Id. at 8. Appellant further argues that the proposed modification would render DiBenedetto’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and would change the principle of operation of DiBenedetto’s system. Appeal Br. 9 (citations omitted). Appellant explains that the “proposed modification would prevent the oil in [DiBenedetto’s] squeeze film from pressurizing and would not push the second annular body 130 radially inward against roller bearing assembly 62.” Id. Appellant asserts that “[i]t is specifically the pushing of the annular body against the roller bearing assembly that achieves the benefit of the structure of DiBenedetto.” Id. at 9. Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 10 c. Analysis The Examiner has the stronger position. In response to Appellant’s argument that Batile’s “pass-through configuration is essential to the proposed benefit taught by Batile” (Appeal Br. 7), and that DiBenedetto’s “seal 70 does not include pass[-]through features” (id. at 8), these points, even if true, miss the mark. Appellant’s argument presumes, incorrectly, that the proposed modification does not incorporate Batile’s pass-through features. Appellant’s argument attacks DiBenedetto individually, while failing to appreciate the Examiner’s proposed modification includes utilizing the pass-through. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). The Examiner proposes to modify DiBenedetto’s system by replacing DiBenedetto’s single piston ring 70 and groove seal with a double piston ring groove system as taught by Batile. See Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5. As such, the Examiner proposes to use the pass-through features taught by Batile. Furthermore, by utilizing the pass-through features taught by Batile, the proposed modification would advantageously protect against an under pressure condition of the liquid oil film, thereby minimizing the risk of vapor cavitation of the oil, while at the same time providing over pressure protection of the system. See Ans. 4 (explaining the same). Indeed, Batile teaches that its double-piston ring with pass-through system allows for “the evacuation of the heat produced by the damping in the liquid film . . . while Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 11 avoiding the suction of air bubbles in the liquid film and thus, the phenomenon of gas cavitation.” Batile ll. 139-141; see also id. at ll. 141- 150 (explaining in more detail how protection against over-pressurization and under-pressurization is achieved with the double piston ring pass- through system). For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have replaced DiBenedetto’s single piston ring assembly with Batile’s dual piston ring assembly (with pass-through). See Final Act. 6-7; see also Ans. 4-6. As to Appellant’s argument that the proposed combination would change DiBenedetto’s principle of operation (see Appeal Br. 9), we disagree. Even if DiBenedetto’s “back pressure in oil O pushes second annular body 130 radially inward against roller bearing assembly 62,” as Appellant points out (id. at 8), there is insufficient support for Appellant’s assertion that the “backpressure would shift the seals 9’, 10’ and allow fluid to pass through the pass-through features relieving the back pressure” (id.). In other words, Appellant’s contention that the proposed modification would prevent DiBenedetto’s pressurized oil (O) from pushing second annular body 130 inward against roller bearing assembly 62 is based on unsupported assumptions about the proposed modification. Appellant’s argument presumes, without sufficient explanation or evidence, that the dual piston ring pass-through system would be arranged in a manner that would prevent pressure from building up between DiBenedetto’s annular member 96 and second annular body 130. See Appeal Br. 8. The record does not support this finding, however. A skilled artisan is not an automaton, and would have been able to replace DiBenedetto’s single piston ring and groove for Batile’s dual piston ring system without completely upending the Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 12 operation of DiBenedetto’s second annular body 130. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). We presume that such an artisan would know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-6 and 21 which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). II. Claims 7-9 as Unpatentable Over DiBenedetto, Batile, and Hibner In response to the rejection of claims 7-9 as unpatentable over DiBenedetto, Batile, and Hibner, Appellant relies on those same unpersuasive arguments discussed above, and does not present additional arguments contesting the rejection of these claims. See Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 7-9. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 21. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 21 103 DiBenedetto Batile 1-6, 21 7-9 103 DiBenedetto, Batile, Hibner 7-9 Overall Outcome 1-9, 21 Appeal 2021-004657 Application 16/125,875 13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED