Ex Parte Merry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2017

13193790 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/193,790 07/29/2011 Brian D. Merry 55644US01;
67097-1471PUS1
8647
54549 7590 07/31/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY
EXAMINER
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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 BRIAN D. MERRY and GABRIEL L. SUCIU
Appeal 2016-0007581
Application 13/193,790
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian D. Merry and Gabriel L. Suciu (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15.
Final Office Action (January 7, 2015) (hereinafter “Final Act.”). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 1 (June 5, 2015) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2016-000758
Application 13/193,790
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to “a bearing arrangement
supporting rotation of a low spool shaft for a geared turbofan gas turbine
engine.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A geared turbofan gas turbine engine assembly
comprising:
a core section including a compressor section, a combustor
section and a turbine section;
a fan section including a gearbox and a fan;
a low pressure spool supporting a low pressure turbine
within the turbine section and driving the fan through the
gearbox; and
a high pressure spool supporting a high pressure
compressor within the compressor section and a high pressure
turbine within the turbine section, wherein the low pressure spool
is supported for rotation about the axis at a forward position by a
forward roller bearing and at an aft position by a thrust bearing,
wherein the forward position of the forward roller bearing is aft
of the gearbox and forward of the high pressure compressor.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Independent claim 10 similarly recites that
“the low pressure spool is supported for rotation about the axis at a forward
position by a forward roller bearing and at an aft position by a thrust
bearing.” Id. at 13.
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando et al. (US 2007/0087892 Al, published
2
Appeal 2016-000758
Application 13/193,790
April 19, 2007) (“Orlando”) and Somanath et al.
(US 2008/0056888A1, published March 6, 2008) (“Somanath”).
2. Claims 6, 7, and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando, Somanath, and Orlando et al.
(US 2008/0098717 Al, published May 1, 2008) (“Orlando 2”).
3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Orlando, Somanath, and Bell et al. (US 2,528,635, issued
November 7, 1950) (“Bell”).
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Claims 1-5 and 8 as unpatentable over Orlando
and Somanath
The Examiner finds that Orlando discloses a geared turbofan
assembly comprising a low spool 34 supporting a low pressure turbine 14
wherein “the low spool is supported for rotation about the axis at a forward
position by a forward bearing 152.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
acknowledges that Orlando does not disclose the rear bearing supporting the
low spool being a thrust bearing. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that
thrust bearings were known in the art and “Somanath teaches that bearing
assembly 95, the bearing assembly that supports the low pressure shaft at the
aft end[,] may be any bearing known in the art.” Id. (citing Somanath 121).
Based on this suggestion in Somanath, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious “to replace the aft roller bearing of Orlando with a
thrust bearing like the one disclosed by Orlando.” Id. at 4.
Appellants note that Orlando discloses a thrust bearing 119 at the
forward end of shaft 34 near gearbox 100 to prevent axial movement and/or
forces from being transmitted into the gearbox. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2016-000758
Application 13/193,790
Appellants further note that the Examiner’s proposed modification to add a
second thrust bearing to the aft end of shaft 34 would result in thrust
bearings on each end of the shaft. Id. Appellants contend that the prior art
would not have led one having ordinary skill in the art to use thrust bearings
on both ends of shaft 34 because the prior art discloses a thrust bearing and a
roller bearing for supporting each shaft. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5-6.
Appellants argue that “[a] thrust bearing is provided to prevent axial
movement” and “[a] roller bearing enables axial expansion of a shaft that is
required for operation.'1'’ Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
The Examiner explains that “inclusion of a second thrust bearing at
the rear end of the turbine would not likely materially affect the operation of
the thrust bearing on the forward end of Orlando because both bearings
would be designed to prevent displacement of the shaft,” and “inclusion of a
secondary bearing would simply add redundancy.” Final Act. 8; see also
Ans. 5 (“no modification to the front end of the Orlando reference is being
made”).
The Examiner’s proposed modification to retain Orlando’s thrust
bearing 119 at the forward end of shaft 34 and to replace the roller bearing at
the aft end of shaft 34 with a second thrust bearing lacks rational
underpinnings. In particular, as noted by Appellants (Reply Br. 5), the prior
art relied upon by the Examiner fails to disclose the use of a thrust bearing
on each end of a shaft, and we disagree with the Examiner’s assertion that
the aft thrust bearing would “simply add redundancy.” Final Act. 8.
Instead, the use of two thrust bearings to prevent axial movement on
opposite ends of shaft 34 would not allow for axial expansion of the shaft
4
Appeal 2016-000758
Application 13/193,790
that is required during operation. For these reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-5 and 8, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando and Somanath.
Second Ground of Rejection: Claims 6, 7, and 10-15 as unpatentable over
Orlando, Somanath, and Orlando 2
In the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 10-15, the Examiner relies on the
same proposed modification of Orlando with the teachings of Somanath,
resulting in two thrust bearings, one at each end of shaft 34 of Orlando.2
Final Act. 5. For the reasons set forth above in the analysis of the first
ground of rejection, we find that the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Orlando to retain Orlando’s thrust bearing 119 at the forward end of shaft 34
and to replace the roller bearing at the aft end of shaft 34 with a second
thrust bearing lacks rational underpinnings. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando, Somanath, and Orlando 2.
Third Ground of Rejection: Claim 9 as unpatentable over Orlando,
Somanath, and Bell
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 relies on the same problematic
modification of Orlando with the teachings of Somanath, resulting in two
thrust bearings, one at each end of shaft 34 of Orlando.3 Final Act. 7. For
the reasons set forth above in the analysis of the first ground of rejection, we
2 Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 and further recite an intermediate
spool. Appeal Br. 13. Independent claim 10, similar to claim 1, recites a
low pressure spool supported at a forward position by roller bearing and at
an aft position by a thrust bearing. Id. Claim 10 further recites an
intermediate pressure spool. Id.
3 Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13.
5
Appeal 2016-000758
Application 13/193,790
find that the Examiner’s proposed modification to Orlando lacks rational
underpinnings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando, Somanath, and Bell.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
6