Ex Parte Hashiguchi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2012

09166233 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

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.
09/166,233 10/05/1998 HIDETO HASHIGUCHI HASH3001/FJD 8891
23364 7590 07/24/2012
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
MILLER, WILLIAM L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HIDETO HASHIGUCHI, TAKAHISA UEDA,
and TAKESHI MIYOSHI
____________________

Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHEAL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 16-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to “a filler material for a spiral wound gasket
applied to various pipe joints, and the joint portions of fluid equipment for
sealing fluid such as liquid including water and oil, and gaseous quantities
including vapor and gas.” Spec. 1.1
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 28 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 16 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
16. A spiral wound gasket, comprising:
a filler material comprising an expansive graphite tape formed
from integrally pressurized expanded graphite particles;
a hoop material overlapped with said filler material; and
weather stripping impregnated in said expansive graphite tape
in the interior thereof and at at least a part of a high density portion
on both a front and back surface of said expansive graphite tape which
has been removed.

REJECTIONS
Claims 16-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Waterland (US 5,527,047, issued Jun. 18, 1996) in view
of Ueda (US 6,027,809, issued Feb. 22, 2000), and further in view of
Houghton (US 3,646,846, issued Mar. 7, 1972).

1 The Specification cited to herein was the Amended Specification filed on
February 20, 2003 and entered on April 15, 2004.
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

3

Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Waterland in view of Ueda, in view of Aizawa (US 5,082,296, issued Jan.
21, 1992), and further in view of Houghton.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner has found that “Waterland discloses a filler material for
a spiral wound gasket comprising: an expansive graphite tape 22 (col. 2,
lines 61-67 through col. 3, lines 1-6); and a hoop material 14 overlapped
with the filler material.” Ans.3. Furthermore, the Examiner has found that
“Waterland fails to disclose at least a part of a high density portion on a front
and back surface of the tape being removed.” Ans. 4. To cure this
deficiency, the Examiner adds the teaching of Ueda which teaches an
expansive graphite sealing material 11 formed from integrally pressurized
expanded graphite particles wherein at least a part of a high density portion
on a front and back surface of the tape is removed to improve the elongation
rate, tensile strength, and flexibility of the material (Ueda, abstract, ll. 1-15,
and col. 5, ll. 44-47). Ans. 4.
The Appellants contend that there is no basis for modifying Waterland
with the teachings of Ueda. App. Br. 7. The Appellants state that
“Waterland III is primarily concerned with a fire resistant material which
does not degrade. This is not a concern for Ueda’890.” App. Br. 7. We
disagree. Ueda specifically calls out use of “sealing members for high-
temperature use” and “heat insulating material for a high temperature
vacuum furnace.” Ueda, Abstract, ll. 17-20. Such high temperature use
taught by Ueda appears to be consistent with a fire resistant material that
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

4
does not degrade as disclosed in Waterland. Therefore, the Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner’s combination of Waterland
and Ueda has adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings.
The Examiner has found that Ueda discloses a gasket material
comprising “an expansive graphite sealing material 11 formed from
integrally pressurized expanded graphite particles.” Ans. 4. In response, the
Appellants argue that the expanded graphite particles 204 of Ueda are “not
used to form the filler material as recited in the claims. The filler material
comprises an expansive graphite tape which is completely formed from
integrally pressurized expanded graphite particles. The particles 204 are
more akin to the weather stripping and not the particles that make the tape.”
Reply Br. 2. The Appellants’ reading of Ueda would require that the mat-
like member 200 is comprised of some type of filler material impregnated
with expanded graphite particles.
Ueda discloses that the sealing material 11 is formed from the
expanded graphite mat like member 200, is passed through rollers 201which
integrally pressurize the entire member 20 (see Ueda, col. 5, ll. 38-42 and
fig. 13). The distribution of particles 204 uniformly through the material 11
(shown in fig.1) is contrasted to non-uniform surface particles 203 and 204
of the prior art (shown in fig. 17). This non-uniformity of the material is the
result of passing through the rollers 201, and is not due to multiple
constituent materials of the tape 11. The sealing material 11 is made
uniform by stripping of the high density surface layer which contains the
particles 203 from the rest of the material which contains the particles 24.
See fig. 1.
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

5
The Appellants have provided no evidence to support the argument
that the sealing material 11 of Ueda is composed of any material other than
expanded graphite that has been integrally pressurized by the rollers 201.
The Examiner’s findings that the Ueda teaches a filler material comprising
an expansive graphite tape formed from integrally pressurized expanded
graphite particles with at least a part of a high density portion on a front and
back surface of said expansive graphite tape which has been removed as
called for by claims 16-18 and 28 are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
The Examiner found that “Houghton teaches impregnating a graphite
yarn/braid with PTFE (col. 3, lines 27-45 and col. 4, lines 24-45) by
immersion of the yarn in a dispersion of PTFE and a ‘thorough’
impregnation of the braid. The resulting impregnation is located in the
interior and external surfaces of the graphite material (see Figs. 2, 3, 5,
PTFE 80).” Ans. 4. The Appellants argue that Waterland, Ueda, and
Houghton “do not teach impregnating the weather stripping specifically in
the ‘interior thereof and at at least a part of a high density portion on both a
front and back surface of said expansive graphite tape.’” App. Br. 8.
The Specification teaches that the “weather stripping” may be
“polyethylene glycol, PTFE, wax, silicon resin, rubber and the like.” Spec.
5, ll. 7-9.As such, Houghton does teach impregnating the interior and
exterior of a graphite sealing structure, a yarn, with a mixture containing
PTFE, which is a member of the group of “weather stripping”. Therefore,
the Examiner is correct in finding that “resulting impregnation (with weather
stripping) is located in the interior and external surfaces of the graphite
material.” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

6
Addressing claim 18, the Examiner found that Waterland discloses a
filler material 22 and another filler material 23 overlapped with each other
and a projection as shown in Fig. 2 which is continuous in the longitudinal
direction. Ans. 6. The Appellants counter by arguing “(t)he projection
claimed is formed on the surface from which the high density dense layer
portions are removed. This is not the case in Waterland.” Reply Br. 2. This
argument is not persuasive as Ueda, not Waterland is used to provide the
teaching of the removal of the high density layer from the graphite tape. For
the reasons discussed supra, the Examiner is correct in finding that it would
have been obvious to combine the stripping of the high density layer taught
by Ueda with the sealing structure, including a projection, disclosed in
Waterland.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 16, 17, and 18 as being obvious over the combination of
Waterland, Ueda, and Houghton.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 17, 19, 22,
24 and 26. Appellants further do not separately argue the rejection of claims
20, 21, 23, 25, and 27 over the underlying independent claim 18. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 19-27 as being obvious over the
combination of Waterland, Ueda, and Houghton.
Addressing claim 28, the Examiner has determined “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to further modify Waterland by utilizing metal band layers having a V-
shaped cross section for a corresponding sized spiral wound gasket.” Ans.
14-15. The Appellants counter that there is no motivation to combine
Waterland, Ueda, Houghton, and Aizawa to change from a U-shape to V-
Appeal 2011-007964
Application 09/166,233

7
shape configuration. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner’s substitution of a U-
shaped spiral gasket for a V-shaped spiral gasket within the same sealing
arrangement is nothing more than the substitution of one known shape for
another shape known in the field to yield a predictable result. The
Appellants do not argue or show that the use of metal band layers having a
V-shaped cross section would lead to unpredictable results as compared to
the U-shaped cross section. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 28 as obvious over the combination of Waterland, Ueda,
Houghton and Aizawa.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16-28.
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

Klh