Ex Parte Farah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

14598574 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/598,574 01/16/2015 Jorge I. Farah
54549 7590 11/23/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
67097-3125PUS1;
79545US01
CONFIRMATION NO.
6213
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LORENC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2018 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 JORGE I. FARAH, STEVEN D. PORTER,
PAULK. SANCHEZ, and JOSEPH J. SEDOR
Appeal2018-005179
Application 14/598,57 4
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, United Technologies Corporation is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005179
Application 14/598,574
According to Appellants, the invention "relates ... to a mid-turbine
frame (MTF) included in a gas turbine engine." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 10
are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. A mid-turbine frame for a gas turbine engme
compnsmg:
an inner frame case including a bolt opening;
at least one spoke for connecting an outer frame case to
the inner frame case including an inlet passage extending in a
radial direction, wherein a radially inner end of the at least one
spoke includes at least two tabs; and
a central bolt extending through the bolt opening for
securing the at least one spoke to the inner frame case, wherein
the central bolt includes an airflow passage extending radially
through the central bolt aligned with the inlet passage.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Palmer (US 2013/0074518 Al,
pub. Mar. 28, 2013) and Durocher et al. (US 8,347,500 B2, iss. Jan. 8, 2013)
("Durocher").
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error because,
among other reasons,
the [Examiner's] proposed combination would change the
principle of operation of Palmer. In particular, Palmer is directed
to a connector having a hollow body for aligning with a hollow
length of a tie rod. Palmer [,I 5]. Incorporating [Durocher's]
connector lugs 52 and 54 would be contrary to the principle of
2
Appeal2018-005179
Application 14/598,574
Palmer of forming a connection and flow path with a hollow
connector aligned with a hollow length of the tie rod ....
The change in principle of operation of Palmer is further
supported by the Examiner now adding fasteners to the
combination to secure the mounting lugs 56, 58 to the tabs 52, 54
[as disclosed in Durocher] ([see] Examiner's Answer [3] and
Final [Office Action 6]). . . . As discussed above, the focus of
Palmer is to use a connector for both connecting a tie rod and
forming a flow path with a tie rod.
Reply Br. 2. Based on our review of the record, including Palmer, we agree
with Appellants.
Palmer describes that
[ e Jach tie rod 60 has ... hexagonally[-]shaped body 65 extending
along ... longitudinal axis 70. Cooling passageways 75 extend
along ... axis 70 within ... hexagonally[-]shaped body 65 of
each tie rod 60.
[T]ie rod 60 has ... widened base 200 that is 30 percent
wider than [a prior art] base ... (see F[igure] 3), and ...
counterbore 205 that is concentric with cooling passageway 7 5
and axis 70. . . [C]ounterbore 205 has threads 210 disposed
therein for receiving bolt 215. [B]olt 215 has ... cooling
passageway 230 extending through the bolt along axis 70, and
threads 23 5 that cooperate with threads 210 within the
counterbore.
Palmer ff 14--15 (bold omitted). Consistent with Palmer's description,
Palmer's figures illustrate that the cooling passageways extend through tie
rods 60 and the bolts. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 4.
Thus, as set forth above, Palmer's principle of operation is to provide
cooling passageways extending through each tie rod 60 and bolt 215, and
this principle would be changed by using Durocher's fasteners, lugs, and
tabs to connect tie rod 60 to a frame casing (see Answer 2-3), inasmuch as
the included fasteners do not include cooling passageways, and further the
3
Appeal2018-005179
Application 14/598,574
fasteners apparently would obstruct a large portion of the tie rods' cooling
passageways. Although not argued by Appellants, for reasons similar to
those discussed above, the Examiner's proposed modification would make
Palmer unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing cooling passageways
through tie rods and fasteners; and in view of the differences between
Palmer and Durocher, the Examiner does not provide an articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning sufficient to establish that it
would have been obvious to reconfigure Palmer's arrangement to use
Durocher's tabs, lugs, and fasteners. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 1 's
rejection. We also do not sustain independent claim lO's rejection, based on
a similar analysis, and we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-5,
7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 21-28.
REVERSED
4