14203637 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Buey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2018

14203637 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/203,637 03/11/2014 12208 7590 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 10/29/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John R. Buey 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. 64010US02-Ul 73-012038 2067 EXAMINER ACKUN, JACOB K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2018 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): USPatDocket@kinney.com amkoenck@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN R. BUEY and KEEGAN M. MARTIN 1 Appeal 2018-001124 Application 14/203,637 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-001124 Application 14/203,637 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 10. A kit for a gas turbine engine comprising: a movable component; a bias element connected to the movable component; and a bladder configured to be connected to the movable component and adapted to receive a bleed air therein, wherein the bias element is adapted to exert a bias force on the movable component and the bladder, and wherein the bladder 1s permeable to allow a gas flow to pass through the bladder. REJECTIONS I. Claims 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated Heim (US 2012/0028562 Al, pub. Feb. 2, 2012). II. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Heim. DISCUSSION Independent claim 10 recites, in relevant part, that "the bias element is adapted to exert a bias force on the movable component and the bladder." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Heim's elongate member 88 "exerts a bias force upwardly on component 90 and downwardly on the bladder." Non-Final Act. 5. 2 The Examiner explains that "elongate 2 We refer herein to the Non-Final Action (dated Aug. 29, 2016) because, rather than reproducing the rejections, the Final Action incorporates the rejections in the Non-Final Action in their entirety. Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal 2018-001124 Application 14/203,637 member 88 pulls on both the bladder 96 and lower end 90 of damper 30b." Ans. 4 ( citing Heim ,r 50). Appellant argues that Heim's "elongate member 88 does not exert a bias force on damper 30b or bladder 96." Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant asserts that "elongate member 88 of Heim is a tie that connects two moving parts (bladder 96 and funnel damper 30b) together and does not exert any bias force." Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, "elongate member 88 simply obeys the pressure inside the tube 80 without ever exerting a bias force or prejudice on the bladder 96 or the funnel damper 30b." Id. For the reasons that follow, Appellant's argument apprises us of error in the rejections. Heim discloses that elongate member 88 connects lower end 90 of damper 30b to inflatable bladder 96, which acts as an air-powered actuator. See Heim ,r 49. Heim discloses that energizing blower 14 causes air to flow through passageway 100 in tube 80 to inflate bladder 96. Id. ,r 50. "As bladder 96 inflates, elongate member 88 pulls the bottom edge of damper 30b upward, as shown in FIG. 10," and, then "bladder 96 begins collapsing or flattening under the pull of elongate member 88." Id. (boldface omitted). In other words, the force of air pressure inflating bladder 96 pulls upward on elongate member 88, which pulls upward on component 90 of damper 30b by transmitting the upward force exerted by the air pressure. However, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we find, sufficient disclosure in Heim that elongate member 88 exerts a bias force upwardly on component 90. In other words, the Examiner's finding that Heim's elongate member 88 exerts a bias force on damper 30b (see Non-Final Act. 5) lacks adequate evidentiary support. 3 Appeal 2018-001124 Application 14/203,637 For at least the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Heim anticipates the subject matter of claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, or its dependent claims 13 and 14, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Heim. In the rejection of claim 11, which depends from claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, the Examiner does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in the disclosure of Heim. See Non-Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Heim. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 is reversed. REVERSED 4