Petty, Dale William. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

14759769 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
14/759,769 07/08/2015 Dale William Petty 63253US01;
67097-2143US1
7088
54549 7590 10/02/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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 DALE WILLIAM PETTY, JAMES P. ALLORE,
JOSEPH T. CAPRARIO, and STEVEN J. BAUER
__________

Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a method and apparatus for
adjusting a center line for a bearing mount relative to a turbine casing
utilizing adjustable tie rods.” Spec. ¶ 1, Figs. 2, 3.3 Claims 1, 4, and 7 are
independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A turbine section comprising:
a turbine housing section including a radially inner
case centered on a first axis, and a radially outer case
spaced radially outwardly of said inner case, and centered
on a second axis, said first and second axes being offset
relative to each other; and

1 We note the Examiner objected to the drawings and some of the dependent
claims for informalities. Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 8–9, dated Jan.
10, 2018. These matters are not appealable, but, rather, are petitionable, and,
thus, are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA
1967). We, therefore, do not address these matters in this Appeal.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. See Correspondence filed Apr. 23, 2020 (Update
to Real Party In Interest). We note that United Technologies Corporation
has changed its name to Raytheon Technologies Corporation. See id.; see
also Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed July 6, 2018.
3 We refer to paragraph 1 of the originally-filed Specification and Figures 2,
3 of the originally-filed Drawings dated July 8, 2015.

Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

3
a plurality of tie rods including a threaded nut
received on a tie rod, with said plurality of tie rods
connecting said inner and outer cases, and said plurality of
tie rods being spaced circumferentially about both of said
first and second axes, and said plurality of tie rods
extending for distinct lengths between said inner and outer
cases such that said inner and outer cases are held at a
position wherein the first and second axes are offset.

REJECTIONS4
I. Claims 7, 9, 12, and 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of written description.
II. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
III. Claims 1–3, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Durocher (US 2010/0132371 A1, published June 3, 2010).
IV. Claims 4–6, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Durocher and Hurwitz (US 2009/0060704 A1, published
Mar. 5, 2009).
V. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Durocher and Foulon (US 3,004,388, issued Oct. 17, 1961).
VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Durocher, Hurwitz, and Foulon.

4 The Examiner indicates that the rejection of claims 7, 14, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Durocher and the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Durocher and Foulon have
been withdrawn. Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Oct. 15, 2018.
Appellant correctly notes that “the Examiner’s Answer has dropped any
prior art rejections of independent claim 7 and its dependents claims.”
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Dec. 14, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

4
VII. Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nash (US 4,571,936, issued Feb. 25, 1986) and Foulon.
VIII. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nash, Foulon, and Honeycutt (US 4,478,551, issued Oct. 23, 1984).
IX. Claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nash, Durocher, Hurwitz, and Foulon.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Written Description
Claims 7, 9, 12, and 14–17
Independent claim 7 is directed to a method of adjusting the location
of a bearing in a turbine section and includes the claim language “said
bearing is at said desired location with said desired position5 being such that
center axes of said outer turbine case and said bearing are offset.” Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims App.).
The Examiner considers the claim language “center axes of said outer
turbine case and said bearing are offset” “to add[] new matter,” because the
scope of the above-cited claim language “includes the outer turbine case
having center axes, and the bearing having center axes. However, the outer
turbine case has only one center axis C and the bearing has only one center
axis.” Final Act. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also Appeal Br. 8 (Claims
App.).

5 We note that “said desired position” lacks antecedent basis. Appeal Br. 8
(Claims App.). For purposes of this Appeal, we shall interpret this language
to mean “a” desired position.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

5
Compliance with the written description requirement set forth in the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require that the claimed subject
matter be described identically in the Specification, but the disclosure as
originally filed must convey to those skilled in the art that applicant had
invented the subject matter later claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The drawings in an application can be relied upon to
show that an inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the
filing date. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“[D]rawings alone may be sufficient to provide the ‘written
description of the invention’ required by § 112, first paragraph.”).
Appellant’s originally-filed Specification describes that:
it may be desirable that a center line A of the bearing 403 be
offset from the center line C [of the outer casing 82] by a distance
. . . . Thus, as shown in Figure 3, by adjusting the lengths of the
tie rods 101, and by tightening the nuts 100 to different extents,
the center y of the inner casing 84 can be moved such that its
center line A is offset from the center line C of the outer casing
82 defined by a no offset center z.
Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3.6
Appellant’s originally-filed Specification at paragraph 31 describes
and its originally-filed Figure 3 illustrates that each of outer turbine case 82
and bearing 403 have “a single” center axis, not “center axes,” as interpreted
by the Examiner. Final Act. 10. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA
1972) (“[T]hings patent drawings show clearly are [not] to be disregarded.”)
(emphasis in original)).
Consequently, we agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan would
understand the originally-filed Specification and drawings to describe that

6 See supra note 3.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

6
the center axes (i.e., z and y, respectively) of outer turbine case 82 and
bearing 403 are offset and, thus, provide written description for the
limitation reciting “center axes of said outer turbine case and said bearing
are offset.” See Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1; Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3.
Each of dependent claims 9, 12, and 16 recites “at least some of the tie
rods extend at an angle that is not directly radially inward.” Appeal Br. 8, 9
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that the
underlined claim language “adds new matter,” because the application as
originally-filed does not support the underlined claim language. Final Act.
10. Specifically, the Examiner determines that “the scope of the underlined
[claim language] includes all of the tie rods 101 extending at an angle that is
not directly radially inward,” “[t]he original [S]pecification does not contain
the underlined claim language, and at most, figure 3 of the present
application shows that two of the tie rods 101 [sic] extend at an angle that
are not directly radially inward.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant’s originally-filed Specification describes that:
as shown in Figure 3, by adjusting the lengths of the tie rods 101,
and by tightening the nuts 100 to different extents, the center y
of the inner casing 84 can be moved such that its center line A is
offset from the center line C of the outer casing 82 defined by a
no offset center z. Thus, the tie rod 112 is tightened to be shorter
than it was in the Figure 2 embodiment, as are the tie rods 110
and 111. The tie rods 114 that had been at the center line in
Figure 2, now extend at an angle, and are longer than they would
have been in the Figure 2 position. The tie rods 116 are also
made to be longer. Now, with the adjustment, the center lines A
and C are offset between the inner and outer casings 82 and 84.
Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3.7

7 See supra note 3.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

7
We agree with Appellant that “[‘a]t least some[’] does not specifically
recite all, and [Appellant’s] description of claim 3 does not limit the
understanding to ‘only two of eight.’” Reply Br. 1–2 (emphasis added); see
also Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3. We further agree with Appellant that as clearly
shown in Figure 3 of the subject application, “tie rods 114 do not extend
directly inwardly.” Appeal Br. 3; see In re Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072. As
such, because two of the eight tie rods meet the claimed limitation, the
original disclosure provides support for the phrase “at least some” in this
limitation. See Appeal Br. 3; see also id. at 8, 9 (Claims App.); Reply Br. 1–
2; Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3.
As Appellant’s originally-filed Specification and drawings support the
claimed elements discussed above, we find that the originally-filed
Specification and drawings demonstrate that Appellant was in possession of
the claimed subject matter at the time the application was filed. Therefore,
we determine that Appellant’s original disclosure satisfies the written
description requirement.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7, 9, 12, and 14–17 for lack of written description.
Rejection II – Indefiniteness
Claims 2, 5, and 10
The Examiner determines that for claims 2 and 5 at line 3, “said nut,”
it “is unclear if this is meant to refer to all of ‘said nuts’ in line 2, or one of
‘said nuts’ in line 2.” Final Act. 10–11. Claims 2 and 5 depend from claims
1 and 4, respectively. Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.). Claim 10 depends
from claim 2. Id. at 9 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

8
Each of claims 1 and 4 recites “a plurality of tie rods including a
threaded nut received on a tie rod.” Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.). Each of
claims 2 and 5 recites “said nuts positioned radially outwardly of said outer
case, and said tie rods include a pin head” and “said nut being tightened on
said tie rod to adjust the length of said tie rod.” Id. (Claims App.).
Upon review of the above-cited claim language, a skilled artisan
would understand that “said nuts” and “said tie rods” at respective lines 1
and 2 of claims 2 and 5 refer collectively to “all the nuts” received on “all
the tie rods”; whereas, “said nut” and “said tie rod” at line 3 of claims 2 and
5 refer to each “individual nut” received on each “individual tie rod.” See
id.; see also Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 5, and 10 for indefiniteness.
Claims 7 and 15–17
Independent claim 7 is directed to a method of adjusting the location
of a bearing in a turbine section and includes the claim language “said
bearing is at said desired location with said desired position8 being such that
center axes of said outer turbine case and said bearing are off set.” Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims App.). Claims 15–17 directly depend from claim 7. Id. at 9
(Claims App.).
Similar to that discussed above for the written description rejection,
the Examiner considers the claim language “center axes of said outer turbine
case and said bearing are offset” to be inaccurate, because the scope of the
above-cited claim language “includes the outer turbine case having center

8 See supra note 5.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

9
axes, and the bearing having center axes. However, the outer turbine case
has only one center axis C and the bearing has only one center axis.” Final
Act. 11 (emphasis omitted); see also Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
Similar to our discussion above concerning the written description
rejection, we agree with Appellant that upon review of the Specification and
drawings, a skilled artisan would readily recognize that as claimed, the
“center axes” represent “a central axis of an outer turbine case and a center
axis of a bearing” and not multiple center axes being “recited for each of the
outer turbine case and the bearing,” as proposed by the Examiner. See Reply
Br. 1; see also Spec. ¶ 31, Fig. 3; Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7 and 15–17 for indefiniteness.
Claim 14
Similar to independent claims 1 and 4, independent claim 7 recites
“said tie rods being secured with nuts between said inner and outer turbine
cases.” Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.). Similar to claims 2 and 5, claim 14,
which depends from claim 7, recites “said nuts positioned radially outwardly
of said outer case, and said tie rods include a pin head” and “said nut being
tightened on said tie rod to adjust the length of said tie rod.” Id. at 9 (Claims
App.). The Examiner presents the same determinations for claim 14 as those
discussed above for claims 2 and 5. See Final Act. 11.
Similar to our discussion above for claims 2 and 5, upon review of the
above-cited claim language, a skilled artisan would understand that “said
nuts” and “said tie rods” at respective lines 1 and 2 of claim 14 refer
collectively to “all the nuts” received on “all the tie rods” between the inner
and outer turbine cases; whereas, “said nut” and “said tie rod” at respective
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

10
lines 3 and 4 of claim 14 refers to each “individual nut” received on each
“individual tie rod” between the inner and outer turbine cases. See Appeal
Br. 9 (Claims App.); see also Reply Br. 2.
Claim 14 also recites “said first and second axes.” Appeal Br. 9
(Claims App.). We agree with the Examiner that this phrase lacks
antecedent basis and it is not clear from a review of claims 7 and 14 as to
what the phrase “said first and second axes” refers. Appeal Br. 8, 9 (Claims
App.); Final Act. 11.
As we agree with the Examiner that claim 14’s phrase “said first and
second axes” is unclear, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 for
indefiniteness.
Rejection III – Anticipation by Durocher
Claims 1–3, 8, and 10
Claim 1 is directed to a turbine section including “a turbine housing
section including a radially inner case centered on a first axis, and a radially
outer case spaced radially outwardly of said inner case, and centered on a
second axis, said first and second axes being offset relative to each other”
and “said inner and outer cases are held at a position wherein the first and
second axes are offset.” Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Durocher teaches a turbine section including “a
turbine housing section including a radially inner case formed by 34
centered on an unnumbered first axis, and a radially outer case 30 spaced
radially outwardly of the inner case, and centered on an unnumbered second
axis, the first and second axes being offset relative to each other.” Final Act.
12. In the Answer, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 24, 32, and 35 in
Durocher for a description of “centering of inner case 34, and bearing
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

11
housing 50, relative to outer case 30.” See Ans. 6–7. Additionally, the
Examiner concludes that “[t]hus, there is an offset that occurs between the
first and second axes relative to each other, and the centering of the offset
originates from the inner case 34 and the outer case 30 being initially held at
a position wherein the first and second axes are offset.” Ans. 6.
Durocher explicitly discloses that “spoke casing 32 includes an
annular inner case 34 coaxially disposed within the outer case 30.”
Durocher ¶ 24 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. Consequently, as inner case 34 and
outer case 30 of Durocher have a common axis (i.e., coincident axes) that
intersect in a straight line, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the
axis of inner case 34 of Durocher (i.e., the claimed first axis) and the axis of
outer case 30 of Durocher (i.e., the claimed second axis) are “initially held
at” or “originate from” a position wherein their respective axes are “offset.”
See Appeal Br. 3 (“While the Examiner states Durocher discloses offset
inner and outer cases, it appears to disclose the opposite, [i.e.,] centered
cases.”).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 8, and 10 as anticipated by Durocher.
Rejections IV – VI – Obviousness over Durocher and Hurwitz, Durocher
and Foulon, and Durocher, Hurwitz, and Foulon
Claims 4–6, 9, and 11–13
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–6, 9, and 11–13 are based on
the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to claim 1. See
Final Act. 13–17. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Hurwitz
or Foulon to remedy the deficiencies of Durocher. Accordingly, for reasons
similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

12
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4–6, 9, and 11–13 over the
variously cited prior art references.
Rejection VII – Obviousness over Nash and Foulon
Claims 1, 8, and 9
Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 9 as a group, and does not present
arguments for dependent claims 8 and 9 apart from the arguments presented
for the independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5.9 We select claim 1 as
representative, and claims 8 and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appellant contends that “Nash discloses a device wherein elements
108 allow positioning of an entire engine within an outer engine case 104”
and “Foulon would suggest nothing with regard to the positioning of a
standard engine, and nothing even applicable to the engine of Nash”
because, according to Appellant, “Foulon is dealing with problems
associated with a particular turbojet/ramjet engine, and nothing within its
disclosure would suggest modifying the standard gas turbine engine of
Nash.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also contends that “Foulon has a reason for
offsetting two completely distinct structures from the structure the Examiner
proposes to make offset in . . . Nash. The fact that two components
somewhere in a gas turbine engine might desirably be held offset does not
mean that all components would.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s blanket statements do not apprise us of error in the
rejection as set forth by the Examiner. In particular, Appellant does not

9 We note that claim 1 is missing from Appellant’s heading regarding this
rejection. Appeal Br. 5. We consider this an inadvertent typographical
error.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

13
apprise us of error in the Examiner findings for either Nash or Foulon.
Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. Nor does Appellant apprise us of error
in the Examiner’s reasoning to modify the gas turbine engine of Nash “such
that the first and second axes are offset relative to each other, with the
plurality of tie rods extending for distinct lengths between the inner and
outer cases such that the inner and outer cases are held at a position wherein
the first and second axes are offset,” as taught by Foulon, namely, “for the
purpose of allowing for adjustment due to thermal expansion at hot
temperatures.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2; Final Act. 18–19; Ans.
12–14.
Moreover, in response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner
provides additional reasoning in the Answer by explaining that “Foulon is
directed to a turbojet engine (which is a type of a gas turbine engine) with a
ramjet, which experiences similar hot temperatures and thermal expansion at
hot temperatures, as the gas turbine engine 100 of the base reference to
Nash” and Foulon is applicable to the recitations in claim 1 of “the first and
second axes being offset relative to each other with the plurality of tie rods
extending for distinct lengths between the inner and outer cases such that the
inner and outer cases are held at a position wherein the first and second axes
are offset,” . . . “since the use of a known technique to improve similar
devices in the same way was held to be an obvious extension of the prior art
teachings.” See Ans. 13–14 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007)). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary.
See Reply Br., passim.
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

14
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Nash and Foulon. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We further sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9, which fall with
claim 1.
Rejection VIII – Obviousness over Nash, Foulon, and Honeycutt
Claim 3
Appellant states that “[i]t is not Appellant’s contention the mounting
of a bearing was itself unique. However, the bearing as required by claim 3
must be offset from a centerline of the outer case.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
concludes that “there is no reason shown in Foulon to modify the bearing of
the gas turbine engine of Nash to have this structure.” Id.; see also Reply
Br. 2
Similar to our discussion above for Rejection VII, Appellant’s blanket
statements do not apprise us of error in the rejection as set forth by the
Examiner. In particular, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning to modify the gas turbine engine of Nash “such that
the first and second axes are offset relative to each other, with the plurality
of tie rods extending for distinct lengths between the inner and outer cases
such that the inner and outer cases are held at a position wherein the first and
second axes are offset,” as taught by Foulon, namely, “for the purpose of
allowing for adjustment due to thermal expansion at hot temperatures.”
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2; Final Act. 18–20; Ans. 12–14.
Neither does Appellant apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding
that “Honeycutt shows a turbine section having a flange 18 positioned within
an inner case 42 to mount a bearing 16 for mounting a turbine rotor 14” nor
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

15
does Appellant apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning to modify the
gas turbine engine of Nash and Foulon “such that it includes a flange
positioned within the inner case to mount a bearing for mounting a turbine
rotor, as taught by Honeycutt. The combination of Nash, Foulon, and
Honeycutt results in a center line of the bearing being offset from a center
line of the outer case.” Final Act. 19–20; see also Ans. 14; Appeal Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Nash, Foulon, and Honeycutt.
Rejection IX – Obviousness over Nash, Durocher, Hurwitz, and Foulon
Claims 4, 6, 11, and 12
Appellant argues claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 as a group, and does not
present arguments for dependent claims 6, 11, and 12 apart from the
arguments presented for the independent claim 4. See Appeal Br. 6. We
select claim 4 as representative, and claims 6, 11, and 12 stand or fall with
claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner now proposes to modify
Nash with Durocher to have the inner and outer case construction. The
Examiner then argues that Hurwitz would suggest adding a gear reduction.
Finally, the Examiner argues that Foulon would suggest moving the axes to
be offset.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant concludes that
“[t]his rejection is improper for all of the reasons set forth above. Again,
nothing within any of these references provides any reason to intentionally
offset inner and outer casings.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
Similar to our discussion above for Rejection VII, Appellant’s blanket
statements do not apprise us of error in the rejection as set forth by the
Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

16
Examiner. In particular, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning to modify the gas turbine engine of Nash “such that
the first and second axes are offset relative to each other, with the plurality
of tie rods extending for distinct lengths between the inner and outer cases
such that the inner and outer cases are held at a position wherein the first and
second axes are offset,” as taught by Foulon, namely, “for the purpose of
allowing for adjustment due to thermal expansion at hot temperatures.”
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2; Final Act. 20–23.
Neither does Appellant apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings
as to either Durocher or Hurwitz, nor does Appellant apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s reasoning for further modifying the gas turbine engine of
Nash and Foulon to include the teachings of either Durocher or Hurwitz.
See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2; Final Act. 20–23; Ans. 15–16.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 4 as unpatentable over
Nash, Durocher, Hurwitz, and Foulon. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. We further sustain the rejection of claims
6, 11, and 12, which fall with claim 4.

Appeal 2019-001583
Application 14/759,769

17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7, 9, 12, 14–
17
112, first
paragraph 
Written
Description
7, 9, 12, 14–
17
2, 5, 7, 10,
14–17
112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 14 2, 5, 7, 10,
15–17
1–3, 8, 10 102(b) Durocher 1–3, 8, 10
4–6, 11, 13 103(a) Durocher, Hurwitz 4–6, 11, 13
9 103(a) Durocher, Foulon 9
12 103(a) Durocher, Hurwitz,
Foulon
12
1, 8, 9 103(a) Nash, Foulon 1, 8, 9
3 103(a) Nash, Foulon,
Honeycutt
3
4, 6, 11, 12 103(a) Nash, Durocher,
Hurwitz, Foulon
4, 6, 11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9, 11,
12, 14
2, 5, 7, 10,
13, 15–17

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).

AFFIRMED IN PART