Ex Parte BodeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201713510052 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/510,052 05/16/2012 Ralf Bode 2009P13311WOUS 8704 22116 7590 02/08/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER BYRD, EUGENE G Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2017 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RALF BODE Appeal 2015-004311 Application 13/510,052 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ralf Bode (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 16—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-004311 Application 13/510,052 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A labyrinth seal for sealing a sealing region between a rotor and stator of a rotary machine, comprising: a base, and a plurality of sealing rings which are formed on the base, project into the sealing region and form, between them labyrinth valleys bounded, laterally, by the sealing rings and, in a floor of the valleys, by the base, wherein the sealing rings, in at least one region, comprise at least one material which is different from that of the base, wherein the different material is softer than a rotor material in a region of the labyrinth seal, and wherein an adhesion-promoting intermediate layer made of a third material is present between the base material and the different material. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Fairbanks US 4,608,145 Aug. 26, 1986 Ghasripoor US 6,969,231 B2 Nov. 29, 2005 Frederick1 GB 651,921 Apr. 11, 1951 REJECTIONS I. Claims 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frederick and Fairbanks. II. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frederick, Fairbanks, and Ghasripoor. 1 The Examiner lists this reference as Fredrick in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer, but this is a typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-004311 Application 13/510,052 DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Frederick and Fairbanks disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 16. See Final Act. 2—3. In particular, the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to provide an adhesive on the different material (b) of Fredrick [sic] as taught by Fairbanks in order to provide a secure connection between the two different materials.” Id. at 3. Noting that Frederick describes an abradable (i.e. different) material that is designed to “be rubbed away or [to] disintegrate[] on contact with a member moving relatively thereto (Frederick 1,11. 48—50), Appellant argues that “there is no motivation [whatsoever] in modifying Frederick to add an adhesion-promoting layer.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant is correct. In Frederick, a secure connection is not desired. Rather, as discussed supra, Frederick’s abradable material is designed to be rubbed away or disintegrated. Modifying this material to be securely connected, as proposed by the Examiner, would render Frederick’s abradable material unsuitable for this intended purpose. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16, and claims 17—19, which depend therefrom. Rejection II Claim 20 depends from claim 16. The rejection of claim 20 relies upon the same erroneous reasoning discussed supra. Ghasripoor does not cure the deficiency in this reasoning. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 3 Appeal 2015-004311 Application 13/510,052 Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 for the same reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16—20 are REVERSED. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation