Ex Parte McCune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2013

11504220 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2013)

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.
11/504,220 08/15/2006 Michael E. McCune PA0002067U;67097-632PUS1 3007
54549 7590 11/07/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3655
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHAEL E. MCCUNE and
LAWRENCE E. PORTLOCK
____________________

Appeal 2012-000419
Application 11/504,220
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000419
Application 11/504,220
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 3-9. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a ring gear mounting arrangement with oil
scavenge scheme. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An epicyclic gear train for a turbine engine comprising:
a shaft rotatable about an axis;
a ring gear including first and second portions each
having an inner periphery with teeth, the first and second
portions secured to one another at a radial interface, and at least
one of the first and second portions including a flange
extending radially outward, the flange fixed to the shaft in an
axial direction by a fastening element; and
a carrier supporting star gears that mesh with the ring
gear, and a sun gear meshing with the star gears and coupled to
an output shaft.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sheridan
Lanzon
US 6,223,616 B1
US 6,402,654 B1
May 1, 2001
Jun. 11, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sheridan. Ans. 4.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sheridan and Lanzon. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2012-000419
Application 11/504,220
3
OPINION
The Examiner reads the claims on the prior art Appellants are
attempting to improve upon by using a single piece flange and ring gear
(made of halves 40, 42; fig. 3) in place of a splined connection (e.g., 53, 68
in Sheridan). Ans. 4; Spec. 1-2. However, in light of Appellants’
Specification, we must conclude that it was unreasonable for the Examiner
to interpret Sheridan’s support ring 66 as part of ring gear 51. App. Br. 5.
Sheridan references the ring gear by numeral 51 and describes it as being
connected to the support ring 66 through splines 53, 68 on each component.
Col. 5, ll. 1-18. We are not apprised of any reason why one skilled in the art
would understand Sheridan’s support ring 66 to be part of the ring gear
despite Sheridan’s contrary usage of the term and disclosure that the support
ring 66 forms part of an antirotation ring 65. The only reason for this
interpretation appears to be to meet the limitation requiring a portion of the
ring gear to include a flange (interpreted as the differently shaded portions of
support ring 66 in the Examiner’s annotated fig. 5). The Examiner has not
explained how support ring 66 corresponds to the claimed flange “extending
radially outward” from the ring gear 51a, 51b. See Ans. 5, 8-9. To the
contrary, support ring 66 extends in an axial direction from ring gear 51a,
51b as indicated in the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 5 of Sheridan
at page 9 of the Answer. See App. Br. 5. When given its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we cannot agree with the Examiner that one
skilled in the art would understand the recited term “ring gear” to include
these additional distinct structures. Since this interpretation forms the basis
for all of the Examiner’s rejections, we are constrained to reverse them.
Appeal 2012-000419
Application 11/504,220
4

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

mls