Bal Seal Engineering, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2022000188 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/923,892 03/16/2018 Peter J. Balsells 1129-160.101 2046 22145 7590 03/30/2022 Klein, O'Neill & Singh, LLP 30 CORPORATE PARK SUITE 211 IRVINE, CA 92606 EXAMINER FOSTER, NICHOLAS L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER J. BALSELLS Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, 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 18-22. The rejections against all other claims were withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bal Seal Engineering, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods of manufacturing seals with v- springs. Claim 18,2 reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 18. A method of manufacturing a seal assembly, said method comprising: forming a sealing element, said sealing element having an inside flange with a sealing lip, an outside flange with a sealing lip, and a center channel section defining a spring cavity; placing a V-spring in the spring cavity, said V-spring comprising a plurality of V-bodies and wherein each V-body comprises a long leg extending in a first direction from a connecting portion a longer distance than a short leg extending from the connecting portion; wherein said long leg forms a line contact with one of an inside surface of said outside flange or an inside surface of said inside flange, said line contact with said long leg having a first length; wherein said short leg has a terminal edge and wherein said short leg is biased against the inside surface of the other one of said inside flange or said outside flange proximate said terminal edge of said short leg and spaced from said inside surface of the other one of said inside flange or said outside flange at a base section of said short leg, which is between said connecting portion and said terminal edge to form a point contact or a reduced line contact with the other one of said inside flange or said outside flange proximate said terminal edge; and wherein when said line contact is formed with said short leg, said line contact with said inside flange has a second length, which is shorter than the first length. 2 Appellant and the Examiner agree that claim 18 does not appear correctly in the Appeal Brief Claims Appendix and that the version of claim 18 entered January 4, 2021, reproduced above, is the correct version to be used for analysis. Ans. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 3 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hubbard US 2,088,703 Aug. 3, 1937 REJECTION Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hubbard. Final Act. 6. OPINION Drawing objections As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 10-11 (citations omitted)), our jurisdiction over objections does not extend to matters that do not “relate, at least indirectly, to matters involving the rejection of claims.” In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1404 (CCPA 1971). Although there was a rejection of claims 9 and 14 for lacking written description and such a rejection can, in certain circumstances, be closely related to objections to the specification or drawings (MPEP § 1201, 608.04(c) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020)), that is not the case here because the written description rejection has been withdrawn. Appellant addresses only the merits of the objection without providing any cogent explanation as to why the Board should be deemed to have jurisdiction over that objection. Reply Br. 8-9. Accordingly, on the record before us, we regard the drawing objection as a petitionable matter and do not further address it herein. Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 4 Prior art rejections Claim 18 is the only claim separately argued and is representative of claims 18-22 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). According to the Examiner, Hubbard meets the sole limitation argued and emphasized above regardless of whether the outwardly extending vertical (as viewed in Hubbard Fig. 93) portion 29 of the spring 26 is included in addition to the axially extending horizontal or upper portion of that spring 26 as the recited “long leg.” Ans. 5-9. We agree. There exists no claim language precluding the long leg itself from having a bend, such as the ninety-degree bend illustrated in Hubbard Figure 9. The “in a first direction” language in claim 18 might preclude considering the length of the flange portion 29 as part of the long leg’s length in “a” singular or particular “direction.” Appeal Br. 15 (enumerated point 2). However, the claim contains no language precluding the presence of such a bend or portion oriented at a right angle as part of the long leg itself and considering its thickness as being part of that length in the recited “a first direction.” Ans. 7-8. With that interpretation, and the axial or horizontal direction of the upper portion of Hubbard’s spring 26 defining “a first direction,” as the Examiner points out and illustrates “only th[e] distance which [the lower leg] extends in that direction is able to be considered” as its length in that direction. Ans. 8 (annotating Hubbard Fig. 9), 7-8. Figure 9 clearly shows the lower leg of spring 29 falling short of the machine element 21f, which the Examiner uses as a vertical reference. Ans. 5 (annotating Hubbard Fig. 9). Although patent drawings may not be 3 All subsequent references to horizontal and vertical relate to the cross- sectional view depicted in Hubbard Figure 9. Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 5 precise engineering drawing, subject matter clearly shown should not be disregarded.4 In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Appellant’s argument regarding the recited “line contact” (Appeal Br 15 (enumerated point 1)) is misplaced because, as the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 7), there is nothing requiring the line contact to be coextensive with the long leg. Indeed, the line contact has its own “first length” apart and independent from the distance the long leg extends in a first direction. The Examiner advances an alternate position that, even if flange portion 29 of Hubbard’s spring 26 were not considered part of the recited “long leg,” the broad claim language would nevertheless still be met because there is nothing limiting the “connecting portion” to any specific region. According to the Examiner a reasonable understanding of “a connecting portion” from which the legs emanate can include the region of the spring not making contact with the biased seal element 22. See Ans. 8 (annotating Hubbard Fig. 8, circling the portion of Hubbard’s spring interpreted as the “connecting portion”). Although Appellant acknowledges the connecting portion identified by the Examiner, Appellant does not present any cogent arguments as to why the Examiner’s interpretation in this regard is unreasonable. Reply Br. 7. Under such an interpretation, the “connecting portion” extends much further in the recited “first direction” making the inner or lower leg much shorter in that direction. 4 Although Hubbard does not discuss specific proportions of the spring legs, Hubbard illustrates embodiments where the legs do and do not fall short of the edge of the biased elastomeric sealing element 22. Cf. Fig. 9 with Fig. 13. Appeal 2022-000188 Application 15/923,892 6 We agree with either of the Examiner’s bases for rejecting claim 18 as anticipated by Hubbard and overall are in general agreement that Appellant is arguing subject matter not recited in claim 18. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[L]imitations [are not read] into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18-22 is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 18-22 102(a)(1) Hubbard 18-22 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