United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

14880519 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020)

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.
14/880,519 10/12/2015 Thomas J. Robertson JR. 77922US02;
67097-3042PUS1
6958
54549 7590 11/16/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GETACHEW, JULIAN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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 J. ROBERTSON JR., ENZO DIBENEDETTO,
NATHAN F. CHAMPION, NILOOFAR HAGHBIN, and
BARRY WILLIAM SPAULDING III
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–16, and 20–26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fixed-variable vane assembly. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fixed-variable vane assembly comprising:
a vane that includes a fixed airfoil section and a variable
airfoil section next to the fixed airfoil section, the variable airfoil
section is pivotably mounted at an end thereof in a joint with a
variable joint gap that controls a size of an airfoil gap between
the fixed airfoil section and the variable airfoil section, the joint
includes a pivot member at an end of the vane, a bushing that
receives the pivot member, and a fixed receiver that has an
opening that receives the bushing, and the fixed receiver is split
and includes two receiver sections that are secured together to
capture the bushing there between, wherein the variable joint gap
is between the bushing and the fixed receiver; and
a potting material in the variable joint gap, and the potting
material locks the variable joint gap and locks in the size of the
airfoil gap.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nickles US 3,788,763 Jan. 29, 1974
Capozzi US 6,619,916 B1 Sept. 16, 2003
Houradou US 8,038,387 B2 Oct. 18, 2011
Davis US 8,197,196 B2 June 12, 2012
Diaz US 2009/0175718 A1 July 9, 2009
Dube US 2013/0195651 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, 16, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Davis.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

3
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davis and Capozzi.
Claims 5–7 and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davis and Houradou.
Claims 10, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Davis and Nickles.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davis and Dube.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Davis and Diaz.
OPINION
Claims 1, 9, 16, 22, and 25
Appellant argues claims 1, 9, 16, 22, and 25 as a group. Appeal Br.
4–5. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 9, 16, 22, and 25 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 requires a “variable joint gap . . . between the bushing and the
fixed receiver” with “a potting material in the variable joint gap” that “locks
the variable joint gap.” Appellant does not dispute the majority of the
Examiner’s findings, including that Davis teaches the recited potting
material. See Final Act. 4–5. Rather, Appellant disputes whether Davis
teaches a variable joint gap. Id.
The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 2 from Davis,
reproduced below, which indicates the elements from Davis corresponding
to the recited “bushing” and “fixed receiver.” Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

4

The figure reproduced above is Figure 2 from Davis, which “is a partial side
view of an inlet guide vane assembly” (Davis, 2:25), with the Examiner’s
annotations mapping the portions of the figure to claim elements (Final
Act. 4). Figure 4 from Davis is also reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

5

Figure 4 from Davis is an exploded view of the bushing assembly in Figure
2. Davis, 2:28–29.
The Examiner finds that “the gap between bushing 60 and the fixed
receiver sections indicated in annotated Fig. 2 [above] is a variable joint
gap” and “a potting material (housing 62) [is] in the variable joint gap.”
Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

6
Appellant does not dispute that housing 62 corresponds to the recited
“potting material.” Rather, Appellant contends that the gap between the
busing and fixed receiver sections, where housing 62 is located, is not a
“variable joint gap” as recited in claim 1 because “[i]n view of the definitive
fixed shape of the housing 62, the alleged gap in Davis would inherently
have to be fixed as well.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant’s contentions are not
persuasive.
As explained by the Examiner in the Answer, claim 1 “include[s] a
potting material in the gap” and “the claims are directed to the final, not
intermediate, product in which the ‘variable joint gap’ is a locked, fixed
gap.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains that “Davis discloses such a
fixed gap between the bushing 60 and the fixed receiver sections formed by
the top of tip 35 and the casing section 28 that is locked by the ‘potting
material’ of housing 62.” Id.
Appellant responds by alleging that “the Examiner’s definition of the
claimed ‘variable joint gap’ is incorrect because it ignores or reads out
portions of the claim language.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant acknowledges that
“the Examiner is correct that when the potting material is in the variable
joint gap the gap is fixed,” but contends that “the fact remains that the claims
recite a ‘variable joint gap’ which is variable/adjustable during assembly or
fabrication.” Id. We disagree.
Appellant fails to apprise us as to how the Examiner’s construction of
the “variable joint gap” is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. Our
review of the Specification reveals that the Examiner’s construction is, in
fact, consistent with the Specification. For example, Appellant’s
Specification explains that “whereas the bushing 74 is adjustably moveable
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

7
relative to the fixed receiver 76 without the potting material 78, with the
potting material 78 the bushing 74 is substantially immoveable relative to
the fixed receiver 76.” Spec. ¶ 40. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
finding that Davis teaches a variable joint gap because of the spacing
existing between its bushing and receiver sections before being “locked by
the ‘potting material’ of housing 62.” Ans. 4. After assembly, Appellant’s
potting material 78 has a definitive fixed shape which results in a fixed gap
in the final product. This is similar to what Appellant characterizes as “the
definitive fixed shape of the housing 62, [where] the alleged gap in Davis
would inherently have to be fixed as well.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 9, 16, 22, and 25.
Claims 4 and 11
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and claim 11 depends from claim 9.
Claims 4 and 11 both add that “the variable joint gap has a non-uniform
dimension.” The Examiner finds that
Capozzi discloses a fixed-variable vane assembly with a pivoting
joint and a variable joint gap, wherein the location of the joint,
which defines the variable joint gap, should be set to optimize
the relative position of the fixed airfoil section with respect to the
variable airfoil section (Capozzi, Col. 3 lines 32-40 and Col. 4
lines 16-29), which allows optimization of engine performance
(Capozzi, Col. 4 line 67-Col. 5 line 5).
Final Act. 7.
Appellant responds by focusing on the Examiner’s discussion of
optimization of result effective variables in the Final Action. Specifically,
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is in error
because the claims “relate to a dimension of the claimed variable joint gap
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

8
being variable, e.g., not a particular dimension,” and “the Examiner relies on
MPEP 2144.05 [for] the alleged support for the reason to combine Davis
with Capozzi,” but “this section of the MPEP relates to ‘Obviousness of
Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.’” Appeal
Br. 6.
In the Answer, however, the Examiner clarifies the rationale for the
proposed modification. The Examiner explains that “since the uniformity of
the gap is determined by the position of the bushing, the claim requires a
specific range of bushing positions, and Capozzi teaches that the bushing
position may be optimized.” Ans. 5. Appellant responds by accusing the
Examiner of pointing to the wrong MPEP section for the rejection, and
contends that “Capozzi teaches setting a specific dimension, not the claimed
‘non-uniform dimension.’” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner has the better
position.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

9
Figure 2 of Capozzi is reproduced below.

Figure 2 of Capozzi is a side view of an inlet guide vane assembly. Capozzi,
2:24–25. One portion of Capozzi cited by the Examiner explains, for
example, that
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

10
[f]laps 62 are pivotally coupled within inlet guide assembly 42
and are rotatable [about] a reference axis 90 extending through a
spindle 92. Reference axis 90 is known as a “trunion axis”, and
is fixed relative to each strut 60. More specifically, each spindle
location is selected to facilitate optimizing a gap (not shown in
FIG. 2) between each respective strut 60 and flap 62. As such,
leading edge 82 is in a spaced relation with a trailing edge 78 of
each strut 60 immediately upstream thereof.
Capozzi, 3:32–40. As the Examiner explains, “Capozzi teaches that the
position of the pivoting joint (flap spindle 92, equivalent to the position of
the bushing) should be set to optimize the relative position of the fixed
airfoil section with respect to the variable airfoil section (Capozzi, Col. 3
lines 32-40, Col. 4 lines 16-29).” Ans. 5. That is, Capozzi expressly teaches
modifying the location of trunnion axis 90 to control the gap between strut
60 and flap 62. The spindle location, through which trunnion axis 90 in
Capozzi extends, is selected to optimize that gap. Applying those teachings
to Davis, the variable joint gap would have a non-uniform dimension, which
would include modifying the dimensions of the potting material (i.e.,
modifying housing 62) accordingly.
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 4 and 11.
Claims 5–7 and 12–14
Claims 5–7 depend from claim 1. Claims 12–14 depend from claim 9.
Claims 5 and 12 both recite that “the potting material is a vibration damper.”
Claims 6 and 13 both recite that “the potting material is a polymeric-based
material.” Claims 7 and 14 both recite that “the potting material is an
elastomeric-based material.” The Examiner finds that Houradou teaches
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

11
these additional features and proposes further modifying the teachings of
Davis accordingly. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant’s only response to the rejection is that “the Examiner does
not go on to explain how making the housing 62 of Davis, which is
considered to be the claimed ‘potting material’ as a vibration damper (claims
5 and 12), or making the housing 62 of a polymeric or elastomeric-based
material (claims 6-7 and 13-14) achieves the purported purpose.” Appeal
Br. 6. To the extent this can be considered meaningful argument, it is
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
With respect to claims 4 and 12 (“the potting material is a vibration
damper”), as the Examiner notes, Appellant’s “Specification states ‘the
polymeric-based material, and particularly the elastomeric-based material,
can also serve as a vibration damper to mitigate vibrations,’ (Specification,
paragraph [0041]).” That is, according to Appellant’s Specification, the use
of a polymeric-based or elastomeric-based material provides the recited
vibration damper. Spec. ¶ 41. Houradou also explains that “the elastomeric
material . . . absorbs the forces applied.” Houradou, 3:20–23.
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5–7 and 12–14.
Claims 8, 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26
Claims 8, 10, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26 depend from claim 1, 9, or 22.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of any of
those claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002891
Application 14/880,519

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 16, 22,
25
102(a)(1) Davis 1, 9, 16, 22,
25

4, 11 103 Davis, Capozzi 4, 11
5–7, 12–14 103 Davis, Houradou 5–7, 12–14
10, 20, 21,
23, 24
103 Davis, Nickles 10, 20, 21,
23, 24

8, 15 103 Davis, Dube 8, 15
26 103 Davis, Diaz 26
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–16,
20–26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED