12413634 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2017)

Ex Parte Cass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 14, 2017

12413634 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2017)

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. 12/413,634 03/30/2009 Michael F. Cass PA0007638U;67097-1137PUS1 9498 54549 7590 06/16/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KIM, CRAIG SANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2017 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 MICHAEL F. CASS, JAMES S. ELDER, BRIAN D. MERRY, GABRIEL L. SUCIU, and CHRISTOPHER M. DYE Appeal 2015-004063 Application 12/413,634 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—32, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as United Technologies Corp. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-004063 Application 12/413,634 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. An engine accessory system for a gas turbine engine comprising: a nacelle assembly comprising a core nacelle that surrounds a core engine and a fan nacelle that at least partially surrounds said core nacelle; a fan case surrounded by said fan nacelle, said fan case defining a fan case outermost diameter; an intermediate case mounted between said fan case and a high pressure compressor case, said intermediate case defined by an outermost diameter that is less than said fan case outermost diameter at an aft end of said fan case; an accessory gearbox case section formed as part of said intermediate case and configured to be positioned within said core nacelle, the accessory gearbox including a geartrain; a first accessory component defined along an accessory axis; and a second accessory component mounted to said first accessory component along said accessory axis, said first and second accessory components mounted to said accessory gearbox case section and driven by said geartrain. Rejections 1. Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 20, 22, 26, and 28—32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suciu et al. (US 2006/0248900 Al, pub. Nov. 9, 2006) (“Suciu”) and Brodell et al. (US 5,524,847, iss. June 11, 1996) (“Brodell”). Final Act. 2—10. 2. Claims 8, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suciu, Brodell, and Miller (US 2005/0183540 Al, pub. Aug. 25, 2005) (“Miller”). Final Act. 11-13. 2 Appeal 2015-004063 Application 12/413,634 3. Claims 16—19 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suciu, Brodell, and Hall et al. (US 2,952,973, iss. Sept. 20, 1960) (“Hall”). Final Act. 13-15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 3—11; Reply Br. 1—10). We concur with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 3,5) that the Examiner has not shown the combination of Suciu and Brodell teaches an accessory gearbox case section “positioned within said core nacelle,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 10. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the turbine engine in Suciu to be intended to have an outer cover. See Final Act. 4. The cited portions of Suciu do not, however, teach the location of the core nacelle in relation to any portion of the accessory gearbox 40. The Examiner provides an annotated Figure 3 of Suciu, finding Suciu shows an “Upstream Portion of Core Nacelle.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. Appellant argues that the portion of Figure 3 identified by the Examiner is intermediate engine frame 52. App. Br. 3. We find it unclear which structure in particular is considered the upstream portion of a housing for Suciu’s engine core. Rather, it appears from Suciu’s Figures 3 and 4 that an unlabeled core nacelle may or may not extend sufficiently radially outward and/or upstream to surround a section of accessory gearbox 40. Addressing the Examiner’s additional findings as to Brodell, we agree with the Examiner that Brodell teaches a fan nacelle that at least partially 3 Appeal 2015-004063 Application 12/413,634 surrounds a core nacelle. Ans. 4; see Brodell Fig. 1. The Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Suciu “with an entire fan and core nacelle as, depicted by Brodell” (Ans. 5), however, does not specify the location of the core nacelle, see App. Br. 5, or provide reasons why Suciu’s accessory gearbox in particular would need protection from the harsh environment or produce substantial drag.2 In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suciu and Brodell. Because the rejections of all claims on appeal rely on the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Suciu and Brodell teaches an accessory gearbox case section “positioned within said core nacelle” (claim 1) or “mounted within said core nacelle” (claim 10), we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5— 11, and 13-32. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13-32. REVERSED 2 Although the Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 4