I'm interested in when the partial fraction method of trying to get a series to telescope fails, and have alighted upon the interesting example of,
$$\sum_{r=1}^{n}\frac{1}{(3r-2)(3r+2)}$$ The standard method of tackling this would be to use partial fractions to get, $$\sum_{r=1}^{n}\frac{1}{(3r-2)(3r+2)}=\frac{1}{4}\big(\sum_{r=1}^{n}\frac{1}{3r-2}-\sum_{r=1}^{n}\frac{1}{3r+2}\big)$$ and then look at the fractions generated by this alternative representation of the sum, $$=\frac{1}{4}\big(\big(\frac{1}{1}-\frac{1}{5}\big)+\big(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{8}\big)+\big(\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{8}\big)+\big(\frac{1}{10}-\frac{1}{14}\big)+...+\big(\frac{1}{3n-2}-\frac{1}{3n+2}\big)\big)$$ To me, this does not obviously telescope.
Questions
I am was wondering if anyone can see a way to get this to telescope.
Failing that, have a nice explanation of why it will not telescope.
Is there a way of evaluating the sum to $n$ terms via a different approach ?
An Observation
In exploring the series I put it into Wolfram Alpha which reported that the series is convergent and that, $$\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(3r-2)(3r+2)}=\frac{1}{72}\big(2\sqrt{3}\pi+9\big)$$
Given the famous Basel problem for the sum of reciprocals of squares, the appearance of $\pi$ is not, perhaps, a surprise.