Ex Parte Souetre

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

11878821 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111878,821 07/27/2007
23373 7590 06/17/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jean Souetre
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.
Ql03028 9146
EXAMINER
MOMPER, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN SOUETRE
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jean Souetre (Appellant 1) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's July 19, 2013 Non-Final Rejection ("Non-Final Act.") of claims
1 and 6-8. 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Messier-Bugatti-
Dowty. Jan. 22, 2014 Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 2.
2 Claims 2-5 are canceled. Id. at 14.
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
"The invention relates to a wheel-and-brake assembly for aircraft."
Spec. 1, 11. 2-3. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 13 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A wheel-and-brake assembly for aircraft, the assembly
compnsmg:
a wheel having a rim for mounting on an aircraft axle;
a brake comprising a stack of disks extending coaxially
about the axis of the wheel, said stack of disks comprising
stator disks that are stationary in rotation and interleaved with
rotor disks that are driven to rotate with the wheel; and
a drum extending around the disks for interposing
between the disks and the rim, the drum having drive means for
driving the rotor disks in rotation and fastener means for
fastening the drum to the rim of the wheel, so that braking
torque is transferred from the disks to the drum and from the
drum to the rim,
said fastener means for fastening the drttm to the rim
comprising bolts extending through the drum to penetrate into
lateral projections projecting from the rim, the bolts extending
along diametral lines extending in a plane perpendicular to a
central axis of the assembly,
wherein the drum extends at least in part outside the rim,
and rotor disks are located on both sides of said plane, so that at
least one rotor disk extends beyond the lateral projections of the
nm,
wherein the drive means includes keys or splines
extending inside the drum and formed integrally with the drum
to drive the rotor disks in rotation.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
2
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
Stanton
Berwanger
Enright
us 3,958,833
US 6,241,052 Bl
US 6,241,062 Bl
REJECTIONS 3
May 25, 1976
June 5, 2001
June 5, 2001
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Enright and Stanton.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Enright, Stanton, and Berwanger.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 6
The Examiner finds that Enright discloses the invention substantially
as defined in independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a drum (heat shield
160)4, but does not disclose "the use of a drum carrying the keys for driving
the rotor disks and interposing between the disks and the rim, the keys being
formed integrally with the drum." Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies
on Stanton to teach a drum (band/drum 59) keyed between the rotor disks
and the rim, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to include Stanton's drum in Enright's aircraft wheel-and-brake
assembly "for the purpose of reducing the total number of parts for
assembly." Id. at 5.
3 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, have been
withdrawn. Feb. 5, 2014 Adv. Act. 2.
4 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of the cited references.
3
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
Appellant first argues that "Stanton does not disclose a drum," but
rather discloses a "heat shield for use in conjunction with torque bars I
keys." App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
expressed by the Examiner. See Ans. 4. Stanton provides that "[t]he
annular band 59 is formed of a plurality of circuniferentially spaced apart
band key members 60" (Stanton col. 3, 11. 13-14 (emphasis added)) and
depicts the annular band as having a drum shape (id. at Fig. 3), and
Appellant does not convincingly persuade us why Stanton's band 59 is not a
drum. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that
attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima
facie case of obviousness). Moreover, Stanton explicitly refers to "band or
drum 59." Stanton col. 3, 1. 50 (emphasis added).
Appellant next argues that because Enright already discloses a heat
shield, "[t]here is no rationale for providing two heat shields to Enright, and
the rejection does not allege that Enright's heat shield should be replaced by
Stanton's heat shield. Rather, the rejection states that the keys of Enright
should be replaced by the 'drum' (i.e. heat shield 59)." App. Br. 9. The
rationale proffered by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 is:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the brake assembly of Enright to replace the keys
with a drum having keys integrally formed with and extending
inside the drum, as taught by Stanton, for the purpose of
reducing the total number of parts for assembly.
Non-Final Act. 5. We understand the Examiner's reference to Enright's
"keys" to refer to keyed torque-transmitting bars 135. We further
understand "reducing the total number of parts" to propose the replacement
of Enright' s torque-transmitting bars 13 5 and heat shield 160 with Stanton's
4
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
drum 59, which, as recognized by Appellant, may function as a heat shield
(see Stanton col. 3, 1. 65); that is, to provide a single Stanton component in
place of multiple Enright components. As stated by the Examiner, such a
substitution would reduce the number of parts being assembled. Moreover,
"one of ordinary skill in taking the teachings of Stanton and applying such to
the disclosure of Enright would have the ability to consider the removal or
replacement of a part." Ans. 6. Appellant's argument does not convince us
that combining the functions of Enright's torque-transmitting bars and heat
shield in this manner is unreasonable, and, thus, this argument is not
persuasive.
Finally, Appellant argues that "the braking torque is not transferred
from the disks to the drum (heat shield) and from the drum (heat shield) to
the rim" in the proposed combination. App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded
by the argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. See Ans. 5---6
(citing Stanton col. 2, 11. 37--41, 48-52; col. 3, 11. 9-22, 45-52). More
specifically, Stanton discloses "annular band generally indicated by number
59 adapted to be inserted axially into position between the rotor and stator
discs 44 and 42 and wheel portion 12" (id. at col. 3, 11. 9-11 (emphasis
added)), the "annular band 59 is formed of a plurality of circumferentially
spaced apart band key members 60. . . . Each band key member 60 is
elongated and ... defin[ es] a channel 70 to slidably engage a key member
50" (id. at col. 3, 11. 13-22 (emphasis added)), and "each rotor disc 44 is
provided with a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart slots 4 7 in the
radially outermost portion thereof which slots are suitably shaped to slidably
receive band key members 60" (id. at col. 3, 11. 45--49 (emphasis added)).
5
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
Thus, Stanton's "drum 59 is physically disposed between" rotor discs 44 and
wheel portion 12 via its keys 60 and channels 70, wheel portion 12 being a
rim (see id. at col. 2, 11. 8-10), so "any force or torque must be transmitted
through the drum in order to be transferred to the keys [of key members 50]
as the keys are not physically in contact with the rotors." Ans. 5---6. In other
words, any force transmitted from Stanton's rotor discs to the rim must
necessarily be transmitted through the drum.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Enright and
Stanton. With respect to the rejection of claim 6, Appellant expressly relies
on the arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim 1, from
which claim 6 directly depends. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 8, Appellant expressly
relies on the arguments presented above in regards to the rejection of claim
1, from which each of claims 7 and 8 directly depends. App. Br. 12.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 7 and 8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 6-8 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-007057
Application 11/878,821
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7