Ex Parte Cloft

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

13216281 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
13/216,281 08/24/2011 Thomas G. Cloft PA0010410-U; 3815
67097-1549PU
54549 7590 06/13/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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 THOMAS G. CLOFT
Appeal 2015-0066551
Application 13/216,2812
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—5 and 7—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 24,
2011), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 19, 2014), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed June 30, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final
Action,” mailed Aug. 5, 2014) and Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed
May 1,2015).
2 According to Appellant, “United Technologies Corporation is the real
party in interest.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
According to Appellant, the invention is directed “to a nacelle
assembly for a gas turbine engine that includes an integrated afterbody
mount case.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 7, and 15 are the only independent
claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below,
as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine,
comprising:
a fan exhaust nozzle;
a core nacelle that includes an afterbody portion that
extends aft of said fan exhaust nozzle and an integrated afterbody
mount case connected to said afterbody portion, said integrated
afterbody mount case including an outer ring having a radially
outer surface and a radially inner surface; and
a plurality of spokes that extend radially inwardly from
said radially inner surface, wherein said plurality of spokes are
circumferentially disposed about said outer ring.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3—5, 7—12, and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balk (WO 2010/007226 A2, pub. Jan. 20,
2010) and Brodell (US 5,524,847, iss. June 11, 1996);
II. Claims 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Balk, Brodell, and Chee (US 5,064,144, iss. Nov. 12,
1991);
III. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Balk,
Brodell, and Kraft (US 5,864,922, iss. Feb. 2, 1999); and
2
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
IV. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Heyerman (US 8,313,293 B2, iss. Nov. 20, 2012) and Brodell.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
With respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, Appellant argues
in the Appeal Brief that Brodell does not teach the claimed “core nacelle that
includes an afterbody portion that extends aft of said fan exhaust nozzle and
an integrated afterbody mount case connected to said afterbody portion.”
Appeal Br. 3—6, Claims App. In response to Appellant’s argument, the
Examiner determines that
[a]s explained in the rejection[] of claim[] 1,... it is ... Balk. . .
[that] teaches the integrated mount case. Brodell is cited as
teaching an afterbody portion (the portion of cowl 44 extending
aft of discharge plane 52, as shown in Fig. 1), including
attachment links 88, 90, and 92. While links 88, 90, and 92
connect directly to the engine mount beam, cowl 44 also
connects to the engine mount beam (col. 6, lines 47[—]50 of
Brodell), forming an integrated mount assembly. While Brodell
does not teach the specific integrated mount case claimed in
independent claims, Balk does teach these limitations.
Answer 9. Based on our review of the Final Office Action (see, e.g., Final
Action 4—5) and the Answer (see, e.g., Answer 9-12), it is not entirely clear
to what extent the Examiner relies on Balk and Brodell, either alone or in
combination, to provide the claimed core nacelle afterbody portion that is
connected to an afterbody mount case. Nonetheless, for the reasons
discussed below, we agree with Appellant that neither Balk (see Reply Br. 2)
nor Brodell (see Appeal Br. 4) discloses such an arrangement.
3
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
More specifically, with respect to Balk, the Examiner finds in the
rejection of claim 1 in the Final Office Action and Answer, that
“Balk teaches ... an integrated afterbody mount case including an outer ring
(annular frame 52)...[,] but fails to teach ... a core nacelle that includes an
afterbody portion that extends aft of said fan exhaust nozzle wherein the
afterbody mount case is connected to said afterbody portion.” Final
Action 4; see also Answer 2. Restated, it appears that the Examiner finds
that Balk teaches the claimed afterbody mount case, but teaches neither the
claimed afterbody portion nor the claimed connection between the afterbody
mount case and afterbody portion. Regardless, we agree with Appellant that
“[n]o portion of the . . . mount case of Balk [as identified by the Examiner]
is ‘connected’ to an afterbody portion of the core nacelle.” Reply Br. 2.
With respect to Brodell, the Examiner finds in the rejection of claim 1
in the Final Office Action and Answer, that “Brodell teaches ... a core
nacelle (core cowl 44) that includes an afterbody portion that extends aft of
said fan exhaust nozzle (reference Fig. 1)[,] wherein afterbody mount
hardware (including links 88, 90 and 92) is connected to said afterbody
portion (reference Fig. 2).” Final Action 4; see also Answer 2—3. But, even
assuming arguendo that Brodell’s afterbody mount hardware teaches the
claimed afterbody mount case, we agree with Appellant that “as shown in
Figure 1 [of Brodell], the links 88, 90[,] and 92 are not connected to the core
cowl 44 of Brodell. Instead, these links are positioned radially inward of the
core cowl 44 and extend between an engine mount beam and an engine case
that is separate from the core cowl 44.” Appeal Br. 4 (italics omitted).
Thus, Brodell does not disclose the claimed connection between the
afterbody mount case and afterbody portion.
4
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
Based on the foregoing, neither reference teaches an afterbody mount
case connected to an afterbody portion. Further, we determine that neither
the Final Office Action nor Answer explains adequately how to combine the
teachings of Balk and Brodell to provide an afterbody mount case connected
to an afterbody portion. See Appeal Br. 5—6. For example, although the
Final Office Action and Answer state that “Balk teaches that using a [sic]
circumferentially arranged mounting structures avoids creating undesirable
loading on the casing .... Therefore[,] it would have been obvious ... to
modify the mounting arrangement of Balk by using it to attach the afterbody
portion of a fan as taught by Brodell” (Final Action 4—5; see also Answer 3),
the referenced “circumferentially arranged mounting structures” clearly refer
to the claimed “plurality of spokes,” which provide a connection between an
afterbody mount cases’ outer ring and a turbine exhaust case in which a core
engine is disposed (see, e.g., Spec. ]Hf 29-33), and not an integrated
connection between an afterbody mount case and an afterbody portion.
Regardless, it is not clear that the Examiner proposes combining Balk and
Brodell to provide the claimed afterbody mount case connected to an
afterbody portion.
Thus, for the above reasons, we do not sustain this rejection of
independent claim 1, or of its dependent claims 3—5. Inasmuch as
independent claims 7 and 15 recite similar recitations, and are rejected for
similar reasons by the Examiner, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 7 and 15 or of dependent claims 8—12, 14, and 16—18.
Rejections II and III
Because each of claims 13, 19, and 20 depends from an independent
claim whose rejection we do not sustain, and the Examiner does not
5
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
establish that any other reference remedies the deficiency in any independent
claim’s rejection, we also do not sustain the rejections of these dependent
claims.
Rejection IV
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner determines that
“Heyerman teaches an integrated mount case while Brodell teaches an
afterbody portion of a core nacelle.” Answer 12. Even assuming arguendo
that is correct, we do not sustain the rejection for reasons similar to the
reason we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on Balk and
Brodell—i.e., because neither the Final Office Action nor Answer explains
adequately how to combine the teachings of Heyerman and Brodell to
provide an afterbody mount case connected to an afterbody portion. See
Appeal Br. 6.
For example, although the Final Office Action and Answer state that
“Heyerman teaches that using circumferentially arranged mounting
structures avoids creating undesirable loading on the casing. . . .
Therefore[,] it would have been obvious ... to modify the mounting
arrangement of Heyerman by using it to attach the afterbody portion of a fan
as taught by Brodell” (Final Action 9; see also Answer 7), the referenced
“circumferentially arranged mounting structures” clearly refer to the claimed
“plurality of spokes,” which provide a connection between an afterbody
mount cases’ outer ring and a turbine exhaust case in which a core engine is
disposed (see, e.g., Spec. ]Hf 29-33), and not an integrated connection
between an afterbody mount case and an afterbody portion. Regardless, it is
not clear that the Examiner proposes combining Heyerman and Brodell to
provide the claimed afterbody mount case connected to an afterbody portion.
6
Appeal 2015-006655
Application 13/216,281
Thus, based on the above, we do not sustain this rejection of claim 1 or its
dependent claim 2.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—5
and 7—20.
REVERSED
7