Ex Parte Puggioni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2013

10572170 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte MARCELLO PUGGIONI, MARCO PELELLA,
NICOLA BANCHI, ALESSIO MILANI, and MARCO BONCINELLI
____________

Appeal 2012-002911
Application 10/572,170
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-13. The Examiner withdrew the rejection
of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 4. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-002911
Application 10/572,170

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites:
1. A heat exchanger device for a gas seal for a centrifugal
compressor, the device comprising:
a fluid heat exchanger positioned between the gas seal of the
compressor and a housing wall of said seal; and
at least one inlet duct entering through the fluid heat exchanger
and configured to supply a blockage gas to the gas seal,
wherein the fluid heat exchanger is configured to keep the
temperature of said seal low in the case of high temperatures of
the wall and/or compressed gas.

REFERENCES
Drumm US 4,872,689 Oct. 10, 1989
Lorenzen US 5,718,560 Feb. 17, 1998

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Lorenzen.1
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lorenzen and Drumm.2

ANALYSIS

1 Appellants mistakenly refer to claims 1-11 and 13 as having been rejected
as anticipated. App. Br. 9. However, the Final Rejection, mailed December
30, 2010, was to claims 1-13 as anticipated by Lorenzen. Fin. Rej. 3.
2 Appellants mistakenly refer to claims 1-11 and 13 as having been rejected
as obvious. App. Br. 13. In addition, the Examiner mistakenly refers to
claims 1-13 as having been rejected as obvious. Ans. 4. However, the Final
Rejection was to claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm.
Fin. Rej. 4.
Appeal 2011-002911
Application 10/572,170

3
The rejection of claims 1-13 as anticipated by Lorenzen, and the rejection of
claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm
The Examiner finds that Lorenzen discloses “a fluid heat exchanger
12 positioned between the gas seal [15/16] and the housing wall 11.” Fin.
Rej. 3. Appellants argue that turbocompressor 12 is not located between
seal 15/16 (24/25 in Figure 3) and wall 11. App. Br. 10-11. It is clear in
Figure 3 of Lorenzen that the turbocompressor 12 is off to the left of the
housing wall 11 and gas seal 24, 253 rather than between them.
In his Answer, the Examiner changes his position finding that “the
heating device 18” heats fluid which “passes through channels 37 and 32
which lies [sic] between the housing 11 and dry gas seal 21a/21b/21c.”
Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Appellants maintain that the Examiner has failed
to demonstrate that the heat exchanger is positioned between the gas seal
and housing wall. Reply Br. 2. Again, from Figure 3, it is clear that heating
device 18 is not located between housing 11 and gas seal 21. In addition, the
Examiner does not explain how housing 21 constitutes a gas seal.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lorenzen is not sustained.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 1-12, the
Examiner does not find that the disclosure of Drumm contributes to the
disclosure of Lorenzen with respect to the positioning of the heat exchanger.
See Fin. Rej. 5; Ans. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-12 as unpatentable over
Lorenzen and Drumm is not sustained.

3 Gas seal 16 is renumbered as 24/25 in Figure 3. See, e.g., Lorenzen, col. 3,
ll. 35-42.
Appeal 2011-002911
Application 10/572,170

4
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Lorenzen.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm.

REVERSED

mls