Ex Parte McMahon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

13588384 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/588,384
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE
08/17/2012
10/31/2018
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shawn M. McMahon
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P A-0022031-US 1013
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN M. MCMAHON, KIRK A. SHUTE,
JEFFREY R. LA VIN, and RUSSELL P. PARRISH
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shawn M. McMahon et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-
13, 16-19, 21, and 22. Claims 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 20 are withdrawn. Final
Act. 1; Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates generally to a turbine engine and, more
particularly, to an assembly for mounting a turbine engine to an aircraft
airframe. Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 are independent. Claims 1 and 16 are
illustrative of the claimed invention and read as follows:
1. An assembly for mounting a turbine engine to an airframe,
the turbine engine extending along an axial centerline and having
an engine core mount and an engine exhaust mount, the assembly
compnsmg:
a core thrust pin extending radially along a core thrust pin
centerline, the core thrust pin including a core thrust pin end
region and a core thrust pin second region sequentially disposed
along the core thrust pin centerline, wherein the core thrust pin
end region is adapted to project radially into an inner bore of the
engine core mount and thereby be connected to the engine core
mount when the core thrust pin end region projects radially into
the inner bore of the engine core mount;
an exhaust thrust pin extending radially along an exhaust
thrust pin centerline, the exhaust thrust pin including an exhaust
thrust pin end region and an exhaust thrust pin second region
sequentially disposed along the exhaust thrust pin centerline,
wherein the exhaust thrust pin end region is adapted to project
radially into an inner bore of the engine exhaust mount and
thereby be connected to the engine exhaust mount when the
exhaust thrust pin end region projects radially into the inner bore
of the engine exhaust mount; and
a thrust pin linkage connecting and extending axially
between the core thrust pin second region and the exhaust thrust
pin second region, wherein the thrust pin linkage and at least one
of the core thrust pin or the exhaust thrust pin are included in a
monolithic body;
2
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
wherein one of the core thrust pin, the exhaust thrust pin
and the thrust pin linkage is adapted to connect to the airframe;
and
wherein the core thrust pin and the exhaust thrust pin are
configured such that the core thrust pin centerline and the exhaust
thrust pin centerline are perpendicular to the axial centerline.
16. A turbine engine for mounting to an airframe, the turbine
engine extending along an axial centerline and comprising:
a turbine engine core having an engine core mount
connected to a core case;
a turbine engine exhaust having an engine exhaust mount
connected to an exhaust case;
a core thrust pin partially projecting radially into an inner
bore of the engine core mount after complete assembly of the
core thrust pin with the engine core mount, wherein a length of
the inner bore of the engine core mount is greater than a
corresponding length that the core thrust pin partially projects
radially into the inner bore of the engine core mount;
an exhaust thrust pin partially projecting radially into an
inner bore of the engine exhaust mount after complete assembly
of the exhaust thrust pin with the engine exhaust mount, wherein
a first exhaust thrust pin end of the exhaust thrust pin is at least
one of pivotally and radially slidably connected to the engine
exhaust mount, and wherein a length of the inner bore of the
engine exhaust mount is greater than a corresponding length that
the exhaust thrust pin partially projects radially into the inner
bore of the engine exhaust mount;
a thrust pin linkage connecting and extending axially
between the core thrust pin and the exhaust thrust pin; and
wherein one of the core thrust pin, the exhaust thrust pin
and the thrust pin linkage is adapted to connect to the airframe.
3
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) Claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or
pre-AIA § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement;
(ii) Claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), or
pre-AIA § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
(iii) Claims 1--4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e), as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over West (US 2012/0012694 Al, published Jan. 19, 2012);
(iv) Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e), as being anticipated
by West, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over West in view of Levert (US 2003/0025033 Al, published
Feb. 6, 2003);
(v) Claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Roberts (US 2009/0140497 Al, published June 4, 2009) in view of West;
(vi) Claims 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over West in view ofMarche (US 2005/0194493 Al, published
Sept. 8,2005); and
(vii) Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Roberts in view of West and Marche.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22--Written Description
Appellants argue claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 12-14. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and the
4
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
remaining claims of the group stand or fall with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The test for sufficiency under the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, "is whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en bane). To have "possession," "the specification must describe an
invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor
actually invented the invention claimed." Id.
Claim 1 includes a limitation requiring that, "the thrust pin linkage
and at least one of the core thrust pin or the exhaust thrust pin are included
in a monolithic body." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds
that the application as filed does not provide written descriptive support for
this limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains that the Specification
instead discloses that the thrust pin linkage is fixedly connected to either the
exhaust thrust pin or to the core thrust pin, but does not disclose either as
being part of a monolithic body that includes the thrust pin linkage. Id.
(citing Spec. paras. 27, 28, 30-34).
Appellants contest this finding. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants submit that the term "monolithic" is defined as "cast[] as a single
piece," "formed or composed of material without joints or seams," or
"consisting of or constituting a single unit." Appeal Br. 12 ( citing Merriam-
W ebster.com). Appellants contend that: (1) Figure 3 illustrates an
embodiment in which the thrust pin linkage 76 and the exhaust thrust pin 74
are depicted as a single unit and, thus, are included in a monolithic body; (2)
5
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
Figure 6 illustrates an embodiment in which the thrust pin linkage 76 and the
core thrust pin 72 are depicted as a single unit and, thus, are included in a
monolithic body; and (3) Figure 7 illustrates an embodiment in which the
thrust pin linkage 76, the core thrust pin 72 and the exhaust thrust pin 74 are
depicted as a single unit and, thus, are included in a monolithic body. Id. at
12-14. Appellants further argue that Figure 3 clearly illustrates the thrust
pin linkage 7 6 and the exhaust thrust pin 7 4 are connected together without a
seam therebetween; therefore, an ordinary artisan would recognize from the
disclosure of at least Figure 3 that the elements 76 and 74 may be formed
together as a monolithic body. Reply Br. 2.
The term "monolithic" does not appear in the Specification. See
Spec.,passim. The Specification discloses that, with respect to Figure 3,
"[t]he thrust pin linkage 76 extends axially between a first (e.g., forward)
linkage end 94 and a second (e.g., aft) linkage end 96" and "[t]he second
linkage end 96 is fixedly connected (e.g., welded, adhered or mechanically
fastened) to the exhaust thrust pin 74 at, for example, the second exhaust
thrust pin end 92." Spec. para. 27 (emphasis added). Similarly, with respect
to Figure 6, the Specification states that "the first linkage end 94 is fixedly
connected (e.g., welded, adhered, or mechanically fastened) to the exhaust
thrust pin 74." 1 Id. at para. 31 (emphasis added). The description of Figure
7 is consistent, stating that "the first linkage end 94 is fixedly connected
1 It appears that the recitation of "to the exhaust thrust pin 7 4" in paragraph
31 of the Specification is in error and instead should be "to the core thrust
pin 72." See Fig. 6; see also Appeal Br. 13 (contending that Figure 6
illustrates an embodiment where the thrust pin linkage 7 6 and the core thrust
pin 72 are depicted as a single unit and, thus, are included in a monolithic
body).
6
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
(e.g., welded, adhered, or mechanically fastened) to the core thrust pin 72,"
and implies that the second linkage end is fixedly connected in the manner
described relative to Figure 3. Id. at para. 32 (emphasis added).
Two elements that are fixedly connected to each other, as by welding,
adherence, or mechanical fastening, are not "cast as a single piece," "formed
or composed of material without joints or seams," or "consisting of or
constituting a single unit," applying Appellants' proffered definition of
"monolithic." Appellants' reliance on the drawings as depicting the
elements in question as a single unit, and depicting seamless connections,
are unavailing, in view of the explicit and unambiguous terminology used in
describing these elements as being fixedly connected, as by one of the
exemplary joining processes. In contrast, the drawings are highly schematic
in nature, and we believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
interpret the drawings as simply not showing in any detail the manner of the
fixed connection. That person of ordinary skill would thus not come to the
understanding that Appellants were in possession, as of the application filing
date, of a monolithic element made up of the thrust pin linkage and either or
both of the exhaust thrust pin and core thrust pin.
Even assuming, as Appellants argue, that the drawing figures would
be understood as showing a seamless connection at reference numeral 96 in
Figure 3, and at reference numeral 94 in Figures 6 and 7, those figures
additionally show multiple vertical lines within the exhaust thrust pin 7 4 and
the core thrust pin 72. See Figs. 3, 6, and 7. The Specification does not
explain what these multiple vertical lines represent, and Appellants' logic
suggests that these multiple vertical lines signify that the entirety of the
exhaust thrust pin 74 and the core thrust pin 72 are seamlessly connected so
7
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
as to be "included in a monolithic body." For this additional reason, an
ordinary artisan would not recognize from Figures 3, 6, and 7 that the core
thrust pin 72 and the exhaust thrust pin 7 4 are depicted as a single unit or are
included in a monolithic body, together with thrust pin linkage 76.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with written description requirement.
Claims 2--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22, fall with claim 1.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22--Indefiniteness
A claim is properly rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b ), second paragraph if, after applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim
are not clear because the claim "contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed Cir. 2014).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 21, the Examiner finds that it is
unclear if the term "monolithic" means "cast as a single piece; formed or
composed of material without joints or seams," as defined by Merriam-
Webster's Online Dictionary, or could be interpreted more broadly to
include components that are fixedly connected, such as welded, adhered or
mechanically fastened, to each other, as described in Paragraphs 27 and 28
of the Specification. Final Act. 4.
As noted above, Appellants do not use the term "monolithic" in the
Specification, and thus have not acted as their own lexicographer in
providing a special definition of the term to include, for example, "fixedly
connected (e.g., welded, adhered or mechanically fastened) to." Thus, the
8
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
plain and ordinary meaning of the term "monolithic" applies, and its
meaning is not unclear in claims 1, 11, and 21.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21, and claims 2--4, 6-
8, 12, 13, and 22 depending therefrom, as being indefinite, is not sustained.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21 and 22--Anticipation by West
Claims 21 and 22--0bviousness over West/Levert
Claims 11-13--0bviousness over Roberts/West
With respect to these rejections, the Examiner finds that West
discloses a monolithic body, in that West discloses that a thrust pin linkage
(thrust link assembly 68) is fixedly connected to a core thrust pin (fastener
94) and an exhaust thrust pin (fastener 96). See Final Act. 7 (citing West
Figs. 2-3; paras. 32, 36); see also id. at 11-12, 14--15. These rejections rely
on the faulty premise that "monolithic" may be interpreted to include
"fixedly connected (e.g., welded, adhered or mechanically fastened) to." As
such, the Examiner fails to establish that West discloses a body that is a
"monolithic body" as claimed. The Examiner does not rely on Levert or
Roberts in any manner that remedies this deficiency.
For these reasons above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1--4,
6-8, 21, and 22 as being anticipated by West; of claims 21 and 22 as being
unpatentable over West in view of Levert; and of claims 11-13 as being
unpatentable over Roberts in view of West.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8--0bviousness over West
Claims 21 and 22--0bviousness over West/Levert
Claims 11-13--0bviousness over Roberts/West
The Examiner notes that it has been held that the use of a one-piece
construction instead of a multi-piece structure disclosed in the prior art
9
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
would be merely a matter of obvious engineering design choice. Final Act.
7 ( citing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 968 (CCP A 1965); see also id. at 12,
15. Thus, for the rejections of claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22, the
Examiner alternatively determines that it would have been obvious to
modify the West construction, consisting of thrust pin linkage (thrust link
assembly 68), the core thrust pin (fastener 94), and the exhaust thrust pin
(fastener 96), to be a one-piece construction, as an obvious matter of
engineering design choice. Id.
It appears that modifying thrust link assembly 68, fastener 94, and
fastener 96 of West to be of a one-piece construction would prevent the
thrust link assembly 68 from being aligned with and connected to the
forward mounting assembly 18 and the aft mounting assembly 22, as those
components are constructed. The Examiner proposes no modifications to
the components to alleviate this problem. Thus, the preponderance of the
evidence does not support the Examiner's conclusion that it would have
been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to proceed with the
proposed modification, regardless of the general principle set forth in
Larson.
For these reasons above, we do not sustain the alternative rejection of
claims 1--4 and 6-8 as being unpatentable over West; of claims 21 and 22 as
being unpatentable over West in view of Levert; and of claims 11-13 as
being unpatentable over Roberts in view of West.
Claims 16, 18, and 19--0bviousness over West/Marche
Claims 16 and 17--0bviousness over Roberts/West/Marche
10
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
Independent claim 16 does not include the limitation directed to the
thrust pin linkage and at least one of the core thrust pin and exhaust thrust
pin constituting a monolithic body, which is at the heart of the rejections
discussed above.
The Examiner finds that West discloses a turbine engine comprising a
core thrust pin (28), an exhaust thrust pin (102), and a thrust pin linkage ( 68)
connected to and extending axially between the core thrust pin and exhaust
thrust pin. 2 Final Act. 1 7 ( citing West Figs. 2-7); see also id. at 19. The
Examiner finds that West does not teach that the core thrust pin and the
exhaust thrust pin project radially into inner bores of the engine core and
exhaust mount, respectively. Id. at 17.
The Examiner relies on Marche as disclosing a thrust pin (rod 50) that
partially projects radially into an inner bore (forward compartment 53, aft
compartment 54) of an engine mount (at chamber 52) after complete
assembly of the thrust pin with the engine mount, wherein a first thrust pin
end (forward end 50b) is radially slidably connected to the engine mount.
Id. at 17-18 (citing Marche Figs. 1-9; paras. 123-126); see also id. at 20.
The Examiner further finds that Marche discloses that the attachment system
could be applied to either the forward mount or the aft mount. Id. at 18
( citing Marche para. 51 ); see also id. at 20. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify the turbine engine of West to include
the attachment system as taught by Marche for the forward core thrust pin
and the aft exhaust thrust pin, so that the engine would be able to bend
2 The Examiner applies the teachings of West differently from the rejections
previously discussed, in rejecting claim 16, citing to different elements as
corresponding to the core thrust pin and exhaust thrust pin.
11
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
longitudinally without the involved connecting rod being mechanically
stressed until a predetermined deformation of the engine is reached. Id. at
18 ( citing Marche para. 27); see also id. at 20.
Appellants contend that Marche does not disclose or suggest its rods
5 0 can be used for an aft mount application and the loads experienced at the
aft mount. Appeal Br. 20. Appellants further maintain, in response to the
Examiner's emphasizing the disclosure in paragraph 51 ofMarche of the
possibility of connecting rods at the aft mount, that even if the aft ends of
rods 5 0 were connected to the aft mount on the pylon as taught by Marche,
the forward ends of rods 5 0 would still be located at the forward mount
connection on the casing. Reply Br. 3 ( citing Marche para. 51 ). In other
words, Appellants take the position that the Examiner has misinterpreted
paragraph 51 of Marche as disclosing that the entire forward mount
configuration can be used as a suitable connection or mount at the aft mount.
Figure 6 of Marche shows the forward end 5 Ob of rod 5 0 is positioned
in a forward compartment 5 3 which is located on the fan casing 2 6 and the
aft end 50a of rod 50 is attached to the forward mount 16. See Marche Fig.
6. Paragraph 51 of Marche discloses "[p ]referably, the aft end of each of the
two rods is connected to the forward mount. Nevertheless, it could
obviously be connected to the aft mount without departing from the scope of
the invention." Marc he para. 51. The correct interpretation of this passage
is that Marche discloses that the aft end of rod 5 0 can be positioned at the aft
mount 18 shown in Figure 5, but does not disclose moving the entire rod 50,
including its forward end 5 Ob, to the aft mount. As such, the Examiner fails
to establish that Marche discloses an aft exhaust thrust pin that is at least one
of pivotally and radially slidably connected to the aft engine exhaust mount,
12
Appeal2018-002897
Application 13/588,384
as claimed. The Examiner does not include any reasoning as to why such a
construction would have been obvious in view of Marche, either. The
Examiner does not rely on Roberts in any manner that remedies this
deficiency. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness directed to claim 16.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 19 as
being unpatentable over West in view of Marche, and of claims 16 and 1 7 as
being unpatentable over Roberts in view of West and Marche.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), or pre-AIA § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b ), or pre-AIA § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, is
reversed.
The rejections of claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-13, 16-19, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are reversed.
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-IN-PART
13