United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 8, 2020

2019005603 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2020)

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.
14/830,497 08/19/2015 William K. Ackermann 1213-81648 5397
11943 7590 06/08/2020
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
MIKUS, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2020 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM K. ACKERMANN, CLIFTON J. CRAWLEY JR., and
FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “Seal Assembly for Rotational Equipment.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 18 are independent. Appeal Br. 12–15 (Claims
App.). We reproduce claim 18, below, with emphasis added to a particular
limitation that is a primary focus of this Decision:
18. An aircraft propulsion system, comprising:
a rotor disk structure including a rotor disk and a conical
linkage, wherein the rotor disk includes an annular
counterweight mass and an annular web extending radially
inward to the counterweight mass;
a stator structure; and
a seal assembly including a first seal element and a
second seal element configured to form a seal with the first seal
element, the first seal element circumscribing the rotor disk,
and the second seal element configured with the stator structure
and circumscribing the first seal element; wherein the first seal
element and the conical seal linkage are included in a single
monolithic body.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The evidence relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Stueber US 5,333,993 Aug. 2, 1994
Justak US 8,002,285 B2 Aug. 23, 2011
Neal US 4,657,482 Apr. 14, 1987
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

3
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
18, 20 102 Stueber
1–7, 9, 16, 17, 19 103 Stueber, Justak
10–15 103 Stueber, Justak, Neal
Final Act. 3–6.
OPINION
I. Claims 18, 20 – Anticipated by Stueber
The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 20 as anticipated by Stueber.
Final Act. 3. Appellant argues claims 18 and 20 as a group. See Appeal Br.
7–9. We select claim 18 as the representative claim, with claim 20 standing
or falling with claim 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Stueber discloses the limitations of claim 18,
citing Stueber’s Figures 1 and 2. Final Act. 3. We reproduce Stueber’s
Figure 2, below:

Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

4
Figure 2 illustrates portions of a gas turbine engine, in particular, “the
stator seal for the last stage compressor stator.” See Stueber, 2:34–38. The
Examiner finds that this figure discloses the claimed “rotor disk” 114,
“conical linkage” (or “conical seal linkage”) 24, “stator structure” 86, “seal
assembly” 14, including “first seal element” 112 and “second seal element”
110 configured to form a seal with the first seal element. See Final Act. 3
(citing Stueber Figs. 1, 2). Most importantly, the Examiner finds that
Stueber’s “first seal element” 112 and its “conical seal linkage” 24 “are
included in a single monolithic body.” Id. (citing Stueber, Fig. 2). Notably,
Stueber discloses that “first seal element” 112 is joined by bolt 116 to
“conical seal linkage” 24. See Stueber, 3:58–60.
In appealing the rejection, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding
that Stueber’s seal element 112 and conical seal linkage 24 “are included in
a single monolithic body.” See Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant
argues, “FIG. 2 of Stueber illustrates the discretely formed seal teeth 112 are
connected to the rearwardly extending cone 24 via the bolt 116, which
provides a mechanical interconnection.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
In arguing that a bolted mechanical interconnection between the
claimed “first seal element” and “conical linkage” prevents the two from
being included in a “single monolithic body,” Appellant cites to the
following disclosure from the Specification:
The support structure 82 may be configured having a
monolithic full hoop body. Herein, the term “monolithic” may
describe a component which is formed as a single unitary body.
The support structure 82, for example, includes an integral,
tubular body that is formed without any mechanically
interconnected axial and/or circumferential segments.
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

5
Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 46)2 (emphasis modified).
Appellant asserts that “based on this disclosure, a person of skill in the
art would understand a monolithic body does not include mechanically
interconnected segments.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2–3 (arguing the same).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for at least three reasons.
First, the sentence cited by Appellant states in its entirety, “The
support structure 82, for example, includes an integral, tubular body that is
formed without any mechanically interconnected axial and/or
circumferential segments.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis modified). Appellant’s
argument ignores two key words: for example. Stated differently, the cited
language simply describes a particular example of a monolithic component
in which there are no “mechanically interconnected axial and/or
circumferential segments.” The sentence does not clearly set forth a
definition of “monolithic” that would preclude “mechanically interconnected
axial and/or circumferential segments” from being “monolithic.” See CCS
Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(explaining that a claim term will generally receive its ordinary meaning
unless “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or
prosecution history.”). Moreover, it is generally improper to read limitations
from specific embodiments into the claims. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v.
Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven if all of
the embodiments discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it

2 Although Appellant cites to paragraph 4 of the Specification (Appeal Br.
8), we understand that Appellant intended to cite to paragraph 46. We find
Appellant’s citation to paragraph 4 was an unintentional and harmless error.
See Ans. 3 (confirming the same).
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

6
would not be proper to import from the patent’s written description
limitations that are not found in the claims themselves.”) (internal quotations
and citation omitted). We also point out that Appellant submits no other
evidence, such as testimony from a skilled artisan or a definition of
“monolithic,” to support its claim construction. See Appeal Br. 7–9; see also
Reply Br. 2–3.
Second, Appellant fails to adequately address the language the
Examiner relied on. In its entirety, Paragraph 46 of the Specification
provides:
The support structure 82 may be configured having a
monolithic full hoop body. Herein, the term “monolithic” may
describe a component which is formed as a single unitary body.
The support structure 82, for example, includes an integral,
tubular body that is formed without any mechanically
interconnected axial and/or circumferential segments. Note, in
some embodiments, a monolithic body may include one or more
bodies bonded together. In another example, arcuate segments
(e.g., halves) may be respectively bonded together to form a full
hoop body. The assembly 48 of the present disclosure, however,
is not limited to the foregoing exemplary support structure
configuration.
Spec. ¶ 46 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s argument largely overlooks that “in some embodiments, a
monolithic body may include one or more bodies bonded together.”
Compare Appeal Br. 7–9, with Final Act. 2 (“Paragraphs 0046 and 0053 of
Applicant’s specification state that a monolithic body may include one or
more bodies bonded together.”). Indeed, the Examiner relied on the “one or
more bodies bonded together” language in construing “monolithic” to
include Stueber’s two mechanical components bolted together. See Ans. 5
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

7
(“Stueber clearly illustrates a bonded connection of the seal teeth 112 and
the rearwardly extending cone 24 as a monolithic body via the bolt 116.”).
Third, the Examiner submits a definition of “bond” as “a connection
that fastens things together” to further support its finding that Stueber’s
bolted structure satisfies the claimed “single monolithic body.” See id.
(citing https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bond). Appellant does not
submit its own definition of “bond” to counter the Examiner’s definition and
to otherwise support a position that bolted bodies are not bonded. See
Appeal Br. 7–9; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
In summary, the Specification and the extrinsic evidence of record do
not support Appellant’s construction of the term “monolithic.”
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, and of claim 20, which falls
with claim 18. As such, we affirm the rejection of these claims as
anticipated by Stueber.

II. Claims 1–7, 9, 16, 17, 19 – Unpatentable Over Stueber and Justak
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9, 16, 17, and 19 as unpatentable
over Stueber and Justak. Final Act. 3–4. These claims either depend from
claim 18 or independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–15 (Claims App.). In
rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner similarly relies on Stueber for
disclosing seal land 112 and linkage 24 “configured together in a single
monolithic body.” See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Stueber Figs. 1, 2).
Other than those unpersuasive arguments discussed above, Appellant
does not present additional arguments contesting the rejection of these
claims. See Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

8
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 16, 17, and 19, and we affirm the rejection of
these claims as unpatentable over Stueber and Justak.

III. Claims 10–15 – Unpatentable Over Stueber, Justak, and Neal
The Examiner rejects claims 10–15 as unpatentable over Stueber,
Justak, and Neal. Final Act. 5–6. These claims depend from claim 1, and
the Examiner similarly relies on Stueber for disclosing seal land 112 and
linkage 24 “configured together in a single monolithic body.” See id. at 4–5.
Other than those unpersuasive arguments discussed above, Appellant
does not present additional arguments contesting the rejection of these
claims. See Appeal Br. 10.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 10–15, and we affirm the rejection of these claims as
unpatentable over Stueber, Justak, and Neal.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7 and 9–20 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
18, 20 102 Stueber 18, 20
1–7, 9, 16,
17, 19
103 Stueber, Justak 1–7, 9, 16,
17, 19
10–15 103 Stueber, Justak, Neal 10–15
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–20
Appeal 2019-005603
Application 14/830,497

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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