Ex Parte Demers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

12307323 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/307,323 0912212009
23117 7590 03/15/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alain Demers
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.
JHN-10-1766 2357
EXAMINER
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAIN DEMERS and ANDERS WEDMARK
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Alain Demers and Anders Wedmark (Appellants)1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 5-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beichl (US 2005/0006968 Al, pub.
Jan. 13, 2005) and Gittler (US 2005/0087933 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Andritz Technology
and Asset Management GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5 and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 5,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
5. A reaction water turbine comprising:
a rotor having an axis of rotation and an annular surface
on at least one radially outer rim of the rotor, wherein the rim is
adjacent a water passage extending through the rotor;
a housing for the rotor and having a seal support proximate
to the annular surface of the rotor; and
a seal mounted to the seal support on the housing, said seal
includes a brush seal extending to and bearing against the annular
surface of the rotor.
OPINION
In connection with independent claim 5, the Examiner finds that
Beichl teaches rotor 12 having axis of rotation 15 and annular surface 14 on
at least one radially outer rim of rotor 12. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
further finds that Beichl teaches housing 11 having a seal support proximate
to annular surface 14 of rotor 12, as well as seal 16 mounted to the seal
support on housing 11, the seal including a brush seal 1 7 extending to and
bearing against radially outer surface 14. Id. (citing Beichl, Fig. 1 ). The
Examiner acknowledges that Beichl "do[ es] not disclose a reaction water
turbine comprising the above seal." Id. at 4.
The Examiner points to Gittler's disclosure of a reaction water turbine
with seals 14. Id. (citing Gittler i-f 66, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner finds that
"Gittler also teaches an annular surface on at least one radially outer rim of a
rotor wherein the rim is adjacent a water passage extending through the
rotor. This rim is about the location denoted as 14, where the seals in Gittler
are located." Id. In support of finding that Gittler teaches seals 14 at the
radially outer rim of the rotor in particular, the Examiner takes the position
2
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
that paragraph 79 of Gittler teaches that seals are referred to as element 14,
and that the arrow associated with reference number 14 in Figure 1 is
pointing to the location of a seal at the outer surface at the radially outward
rim of the rotor, even if a seal itself is not actually illustrated there. Id. at 3;
Ans. 9 (asserting that "[ t ]his first view [of the upper portion of Gittler' s
Figure 1] clearly shows the upper location of seal 14 (although the actual is
not shown, the location is clear) as being between the outer rim of the rotor
and the inner rim of the housing"), 10 (asserting that "[t]his second view [of
the lower portion of Gittler' s Figure 1] clearly shows the lower location of
seal 14 (although the actual is not shown, the location is clear) as being
between the outer rim of the rotor and the inner rim of the housing"), 12
(asserting that the "Examiner has consistently interpreted [the Specification
of Gittler] to mean that the locations pointed out as 14 in Fig. 1 of Gittler
show the location of seals").
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art "to modify the apparatus of Beichl [] by using the
seals in a reaction water turbine as taught in Gittler for the purpose of
providing an alternative way in which to seal against efficiency and
performance losses." Final Act. 4. The Examiner states that "Beichl
broadly teaches a seal between a stator and a rotor, and Gittler teaches a seal
in the same location as Appellants[,] but does not disclose the structure of
said seal." Ans. 11. Thus, the Examiner's rejection hinges on both Beichl
and Gittler teaching a seal in the same location (i.e., at the annular surface on
the radially outer rim of the rotor as set forth in claim 5 or the radially outer
3
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
surface of the rotor as set forth in claim 172) to explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would particularly position Beichl' s brush seals at the annular
surface of the radially outer rim or the radially outer surface of the rotor,
when incorporated in a reaction water turbine.
Appellants argue that Gittler' s seal is not at the radially outer surface
of the rotor, but rather is mounted to, for example, an upper surface of the
rotor in a position that is radially inward of the end of the rotor. App. Br. 7,
12. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner's reliance on the tip of the
arrow corresponding to reference numeral 14 is misplaced." Id. at 12-13.
Appellants argue that in the context of Gittler, in which it is taught to replace
the labyrinth seal of Figure 1 with sealing ring 20 (as illustrated in Figures
2-3), it is clear that the labyrinth seal and sealing ring are both shown on an
upper surface of the rotor, not a radially outward surface. Id. at 13 (citing
Gittler i-f 80, Figs. 1-3).
We have reviewed the Examiner's explanation of paragraph 79 and
the Figures of Gittler and determine that the Examiner has not established by
a preponderance of the evidence that Gittler teaches a seal bearing against
the annular surface of the rotor, as recited in claim 5, nor a seal abutting an
annular bearing surface on a radially outer surface of the rotor or a surface of
the housing facing the radially outer surface of the rotor, as recited in claim
2 Independent claim 5 recites "a seal support proximate to the annular
surface of the rotor" and "a brush seal extending to and bearing against the
annular surface of the rotor," with the "annular surface [of the rotor] on at
least one radially outer rim of the rotor." App. Br., Claims App.
Independent claim 17 recites "a seal support fixed to the housing or the
rotor" and "an annular bearing surface abutting the brush seal ... , wherein
the bearing surface is on a radially outer surface of the rotor or on a surface
of the housing facing the radially outer surface of the rotor." Id.
4
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
17. Paragraph 79 mentions reference element 14 only to state that "[i]n
addition to the main water stream F, in the case of conventional seals 14, a
gap water stream is also formed through the impeller lateral spaces between
turbine housing 12 and outer 10 and inner cover disk 11." Gittler i-f 79. We
do not find sufficient support in this sentence to establish that it is more
likely than not that the arrow associated with reference number 14 in prior
art Figure 1 is indicating locations in which seals would be disposed,
although not specifically illustrated, as reasoned by the Examiner.
Because the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness rests on Gittler
teaching a seal at the radially outermost surface of the rotor, and we are not
persuaded that the Examiner's articulated findings with respect to paragraph
79 and Figure 1 of Gittler have established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Gittler makes this teaching, we determine that the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness is in error. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (The Examiner must provide sufficient facts to support the
conclusion of obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence.).
Moreover, Appellants argue that the Examiner's stated reason to
modify Beichl, i.e., "providing an alternative way in which to seal against
efficiency and performance losses," lacks rational underpinnings because the
Examiner "does not establish how a brush seal would increase efficiency or
reduce performance losses" and there is no indication that "any performance
or efficiency loss occurs due to water leakage around the rim of a water
turbine," such the references "would not have led a person or ordinary skill
to search for a seal to position at the rim of a water turbine." Reply Br. 8.
We agree that Gittler is concerned with water flow "[i]n both impeller lateral
spaces which are produced, between the housing and the outer and inner
5
Appeal2014-002382
Application 12/307,323
cover disk" (Gittler ifif6), as opposed to between the rim or radially outer
surface of the rotor and opposing housing, in particular.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
provided a reason with rational evidentiary underpinning to support why a
person of ordinary skill in art would have incorporated Beichl' s brush seal
into a reaction water turbine environment so as to place the brush seal at the
annular surface of the radially outer rim or the radially outer surface of the
rotor, in particular, as opposed to any other location within the reaction
water turbine. This is especially true considering that Beichl teaches the
brush seal extending against a rotor axle, and Gittler teaches seals that are
designed to seal the impeller lateral spaces between the housing and the
outer and inner cover disk, rather than the radially outermost rim in
particular.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error and we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 5 and 17, as
well as claims 6-16 and 18-25 that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5-25 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6