Ex Parte Baghdadi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2009

10797452 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAM BAGHDADI and ROBERT W. SUNSHINE
____________

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: October 26, 2009
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sam Baghdadi et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20. Claims 7, 8, 17,
and 18 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

2
The Invention
The claimed invention is to a turbine seal in order to form a seal
between adjacent turbine components in a steam turbine in order to separate
fluids and maintain the turbine’s efficiency. Spec. 1:5-7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A turbine engine having a seal, comprising:
a plurality of blades extending radially from a
rotatable body and generally forming at least one
row of blades;
a plurality of blades extending radially from a
stationary body towards the rotatable body and
generally forming at least one row of blades;
a high pressure gas region in the turbine engine
that is proximate to the plurality of blades
extending radially from the stationary body and
opposite to the plurality of blades extending
radially from the rotatable body;
a low pressure gas region in the turbine engine
that is proximate to the plurality of blades
extending radially from the rotatable body and
opposite to the plurality of blades extending
radially from the stationary body, wherein the low
pressure region has a pressure less than the high
pressure region;
wherein the plurality of blades extending from
the rotatable body and the plurality of blades
extending from the stationary body form the seal
between the high pressure gas region and the low
pressure gas region;
wherein the plurality of blades extending
radially from the stationary body are positioned
proximate to the plurality of blades extending from
the rotatable body and are nonparallel with the
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

3
plurality of blades extending from the rotatable
body, and the plurality of blades extending radially
from the stationary body are positioned at an acute
angle relative to a rotational axis of the rotatable
body in the at least one row of blades that is
generally orthogonal to the rotational axis; and
wherein the plurality of blades coupled to the
rotatable body are positioned to direct fluids from
the low pressure gas region toward the high
pressure gas region to limit leakage of fluids from
the high pressure gas region proximate to the at
least one row of blades coupled to the stationary
body to the low pressure gas region proximate to
the at least one row of blades coupled to the
rotatable body.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
First, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross (US
3,575,523, issued on Apr. 20, 1971) in view of Bunker (US 6,027,306,
issued on Feb. 22, 2000) and further in view of Lösel (US 1,689,735, issued
on Oct. 30, 1928).
Second, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5-6, 12, and 15-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross, Bunker, Lösel,
and further in view of Albers (US 4,571,937, issued on Feb. 25, 1986).

Contentions
For the first rejection, Appellants contend that Lösel fails to teach a
plurality of blades extending radially from the stationary body that are
positioned at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis of a rotatable body
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

4
“in the at least one row of blades that is generally orthogonal to the
rotational axis.” App. Br. 11-12. Appellants characterize Lösel’s
intersection of the blade and the stationary support structure being
orthogonal to the rotational axis; and the blade extending at an acute angle
away from the base. App. Br. 12. In contrast, in the claimed invention, “the
plurality of blades extending radially from the stationary body are positioned
at an acute angle relative to a rotational axis of the rotatable body in the at
least one row of blades that is generally orthogonal to the rotational axis…”
Id.
For the second rejection, Appellants additionally contend that there is
no teaching or suggestion to combine Albers’s blades with Gross or Bunker
because Albers’s blades are used to redirect fluids flowing downstream of
the turbine blades. App. Br. 14. Thusly, the proposed combination would
yield a “pumping action of the blades on the rotational body [that] direct[s]
fluids upstream and away from the blade of Albers.” Id. This is in contrast
to the claimed configuration of blades that “direct[s] fluids towards the high
pressure region and towards the blades extending from the stationary body.”
App. Br. 14-15. Appellants further contend that the combination would not
yield the claimed invention but instead would yield the stationary blades
being positioned between the blades extending from the rotational body and
the low pressure region. App. Br. 15. Further, there is no motivation found
in Albers, Gross, and Bunker for a redesign. Id.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

5

OPINION
Issues
In light of the Appellants’ contentions against the Examiner’s
rejections, the issues before us are as follows:
1) Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-20 because the scope and
content of Gross, Bunker, and Lösel fail to teach a turbine engine with a seal
that has a row of blades that extend radially from a stationary body, which
are generally orthogonal to a rotational axis of a rotatable body, and are
positioned at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis?
2) Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 5-6, 12, and 15-16 because a person having ordinary skill
in the art would find that the teachings of Albers are not compatible to the
teachings of Gross, Bunker and Lösel?

Pertinent Facts
1. The pertinent part of claim 1 directed to issue (1) (with added
reference numerals keyed to Appellants’ drawing) is:
a plurality of blades [20] extending radially from a
stationary body [14] towards the rotatable body
[12] and generally forming at least one row of
blades; ... and the plurality of blades [20]
extending radially from the stationary body [14]
are positioned at an acute angle [β] relative to a
rotational axis of the rotatable body in the at least
one row of blades that is generally orthogonal to
the rotational axis;...
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

6
2. Appellants have not explained how a person having ordinary skill in
the art would interpret the portion of claim 1 quoted above. App. Br.
passim.
3. The Specification discloses that:
The seal 10 also includes a plurality of blades 20
extending from the stationary body 14 towards the
rotatable body 12. The blades 20 may form a
single row, as shown in Figure 2, or a plurality of
rows. The blades 20 may also be aligned at an
angle β of between about 1 degrees and about 89
degrees relative to a rotational axis 18 of the
rotatable body 12. In at least one embodiment, the
blades 16 may aligned at an angle of about 60
degrees relative to the rotational axis. The angles
α and β are measured from the rotational axis 18.
Spec. 4:3-9.
4. Appellants’ Figure 2 illustrates the sole embodiment disclosed in the
Specification.

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

7
Appellants’ Figure 2 depicts the rotor and stationary portions of a turbine
engine having a seal with the aspects of Appellants’ invention.
5. As disclosed in the Specification and shown in Figure 2, the row of
blades 20 extend radially from a stationary body 14 and are generally
orthogonal to a rotational axis 18 of a rotatable body 12 and are
positioned at an acute angle β relative to the rotational axis 18.
6. The Examiner found that Gross describes a plurality of blades 16 and
17 extending radially from a stationary body 15 toward a rotatable
body 11, and blades 16 and 17 form a row of blades. Ans. 3.
7. We find that blades 16 and 17 extend toward a rotational axis of the
rotatable body 11 because the Examiner has found that blades 16 and
17 extend radially toward the rotatable body 11. See Fact 6.
8. The Examiner found that Gross does not describe that the row of
blades 16 and 17 are positioned at an acute angle relative to a
rotational axis of the rotatable body 11. Ans. 4.
9. The Examiner found that Lösel describes on page 1, lines 65-70 a
stationary member with a plurality of blades that are angled at an
acute angle relative to a rotational axis of a rotatable body. Id.
10. Lösel describes on page 1, lines 65-70, that rings d have a series of
rigid ring ribs e. The ribs e are wedge-shaped and inclined toward the
left from the right angle position as shown in the figures. Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

8

Figure 1 is a sectional view of a gland construction showing a ring d
provided with ring ribs e. Figure 1 depicts ribs e inclined to the left from
a line orthogonal to the shaft a.
11. The Examiner was not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Lösel
fails to describe stationary blades that extend radially and generally
form a row of blades where the blades are positioned at an acute axis
relative to a rotational axis, because blades C’, as shown in Figure 2,
form a row along a rotational axis and the blades are at an acute angle
relative to the rotational axis of rotational shaft a. The Examiner’s
annotated version of Lösel’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a sectional view of another gland construction showing a ring
d provided with ring ribs e. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 depicts
that blades C’ form a row along the rotational axis of shaft a.

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

9
Principles of Law
A determination of obviousness involves two steps. The first is
construing the claim, a question of law. The second is a comparison of the
construed claim to the prior art. This comparison process involves fact-
finding. Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). All words in a claim must be considered in
judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424
F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The PTO applies to verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in
applicant’s specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

10
Analysis
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-20
as a group. We select claim 1 as representative of this group to address
whether Appellants have demonstrated an error on the part of the Examiner.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 2, 5-6, 12, and 15-
16 as a group.
Claim Construction
When the claim limitations in dispute between the Examiner and
Appellants are compared to the scope and content of the prior art of record,
and are read in light of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret the claim limitations as at least one row of blades that extend
radially from a stationary body, which are generally orthogonal to a
rotational axis of a rotatable body, and are positioned at an acute angle
relative to the rotational axis. See Fact 1-5. We next see if the prior art of
record discloses, teaches, or suggests, in a turbine engine, at least one row of
blades that extend radially from a stationary body, which are generally
orthogonal to a rotational axis of a rotatable body, and are positioned at an
acute angle relative to the rotational axis.
Issue (1)
The Examiner and Appellants take different positions as to what
should be considered a row of blades. The Examiner’s position is that the
row of blades are the blades e or C’ that, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of
Lösel, extend to the left and right of the page, and the acute angle is taken
from an imaginary line drawn from C’ to the rotational axis of shaft a as
shown in the Examiner’s annotated drawing of Figure 2. See Facts 10-11.
Appellants counter that the row of blades are the continuous rings that
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

11
extend at an acute angle relative to a radial axis that projects from the
rotational axis of shaft a.
The Appellants’ argument does not persuade us that the Examiner’s
identifying the row of blades to be blades e or C’ that extend to the left and
right of the page as shown in Figures 1 and 2 is unreasonable. Nothing in
Lösel precludes the Examiner’s finding. A person having ordinary skill in
the art would find it reasonable to consider the blades e and C’ as shown in
Figure 2 of Lösel, extending to the left and right of the page, to be a row of
blades. As shown in the figures, this row of blades being on the stationary
member (box ring d) is generally orthogonal to the axis of rotation of shaft a.
Further, as the Examiner annotated, the distal portion of blades C’ are angled
to the right. Drawing an imaginary line, as the Examiner annotated, from
the distal portion of a blade C’ that would intersect the rotational axis of
shaft a would yield an angle less than ninety degrees. An angle less than
ninety degrees is an acute angle. Thus, Lösel teaches a row of blades
generally orthogonal (proximal portion of blades C’) to a rotational axis and
positioned at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis.
The Examiner then applied Lösel’s teaching above to the combination
with Gross. Previously, the Examiner found that Gross describes a plurality
of blades 16 and 17 extending radially from a stationary body 15 toward a
rotatable body 11, and blades 16 and 17 form a row of blades. As such,
Gross disclosed a plurality of blades extending radially from a stationary
body toward a rotatable body, with these blades forming a row of blades,
while Lösel teaches a row of blades generally orthogonal (Gross’s blades are
likewise orthogonal) to a rotational axis and positioned at an acute angle
relative to the rotational axis. “Common sense teaches . . . that . . . in many
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

12
cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle… A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-421.
In this case, a person of ordinary skill could readily apply the teachings of
Lösel’s row of blades at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis of the
shaft a to Gross’s disclosed plurality of blades extending radially from a
stationary body and toward a rotatable body, with these blades forming a
row of blades. Therefore, the combination presented by the Examiner
satisfies a row of blades that extend radially from a stationary body, which
are generally orthogonal to a rotational axis of a rotatable body, and are
positioned at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis, which is all that is
required to satisfy claim 1.
Issue (2)
Appellants contend, in addition to the previous contentions regarding
claims 1 and 11, that: Albers is not a seal system; and there is no teaching in
the combination of Gross, Bunker, Lösel, and Albers to combine Albers with
the former three references because Albers’s blades are used to redirect
fluids flowing downstream of the turbine blade. Thusly, to Appellants, the
combination of blades with the configurations disclosed in Gross and
Bunker would yield blades on a rotational body with downstream blades on
a stationary body for redirecting the downstream flow. As such, Appellants
posit that the pumping action of the blades on the rotational body would
direct fluids upstream and away from the blades of Albers. App. Br. 14.
The Appellants further posit that the Examiner’s combination would
not satisfy having the stationary blades between the high pressure region and
the rotational body; rather, Albers’s stationary blades would be positioned
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

13
between the low pressure region and the rotational body. App. Br. 14-15.
Thus, Appellants posit that a redesign to reach the claimed configuration is
not obvious because no motivation exists in the art or in the disclosures of
Gross, Bunker, Lösel, and Albers.
The Examiner responds to the Appellants’ contentions with that, even
if Albers does not teach a seal, Albers is only used to teach that the blades on
the stationary body are formed intermittently and are angled relative to the
rotational axis (see Albers figure 1) and are annular spaced to form a row
extending in an annular direction of the stationary member.
We addressed, supra, why Appellants’ contentions against the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 did not demonstrate error on the part of the
Examiner and those remarks are incorporated herein. Likewise, Appellants’
contentions with respect to the second rejection of the Examiner do not
demonstrate error because the contentions focus on bodily incorporating all
of Albers into the combination of Gross, Bunker, and Lösel. In obviousness
determinations, all of the features of the secondary reference need not be
bodily incorporated into the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly
follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the
exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that an
artisan exercising independent judgment would have had reason to rely on
those teachings in Albers on which the Examiner has relied; apply those
teachings to the combination of Gross, Bunker, and Lösel; and fit all those
teachings together like pieces of a puzzle. Again, “[a] person of ordinary
Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

14
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 421.

CONCLUSIONS
1) Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-20 because the scope and
content of Gross, Bunker, and Lösel teaches a turbine engine with a seal that
has a row of blades that extend radially from a stationary body, which are
generally orthogonal to a rotational axis of a rotatable body, and are
positioned at an acute angle relative to the rotational axis.
2) Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 5-6, 12, and 15-16 because a person of ordinary skill in
the art would find that the teachings of Albers are compatible with the
teachings of Gross, Bunker and Lösel.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 is
affirmed.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-003418
Application 10/797,452

15
mls

SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN NJ 08830