Ex Parte Bunker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

11394489 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte RONALD SCOTT BUNKER
________________

Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-27. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter pertains to “a sealing system for an
interface between rotating and stationary components.” Spec. para [0001].
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A rotary machine, comprising:
a stationary member;
a rotary member disposed inside the stationary member,
wherein the rotary member comprises at least one airfoil having
an upstream side wall, a downstream side wall, and a tip portion
disposed between the upstream and downstream side walls; and
a sealing system disposed on the tip portion, wherein the
sealing system consists essentially of:
at least one seal strip disposed on the tip portion at an
off-center position substantially between the downstream side
wall and a central position between the upstream and
downstream sidewalls.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
North US 4,424,001 Jan. 3, 1984
Bunker (Bunker '556) US 6,179,556 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Mayer US 6,190,129 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
Bunker (Bunker '678) US 6,494,678 B1 Dec. 17, 2002

Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

3
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 22-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bunker '556. Ans. 4.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by North. Ans. 5.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mayer. Ans. 6.
4. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 21-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bunker '678. Ans. 7.
5. Claims 17, 18, 20 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bunker '678 and Mayer. Ans. 8.
6. Claims 17-19, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bunker '678 and Bunker '556. Ans. 9.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 22-25 and 27
as being anticipated by Bunker '556
Appellant argues these claims together as a group. Br. 6-8. We select
claim 1 for review with claims 2-4, 7-13, 15, 22-25 and 27 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claim 1 includes the limitation of “at least one seal strip disposed on
the tip portion at an off-center position substantially between the
downstream side wall and a central position between the upstream and
downstream sidewalls.” See also Br. 7. This limitation is immediately
preceded by the transitional phrase “consists essentially of.” Our reviewing
court has provided instruction that the phrase “consisting essentially of”
indicates that “the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients,” but
Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

4
also that the claim is “open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially
affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Indus. v.
Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Thus, a
‘consisting essentially of’ claim is generally broader than a ‘consisting of’
claim.” Yoon Ja Kim v. The Earthgrains Company, 451 Fed. Appx. 922,
925 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner identifies seal strip 50 in Bunker '556 which is disposed
as claimed. Ans. 4. Appellant contends that inwardly offset item 50
“extends around the entire perimeter of the blade tip 30” which is not “at
least ‘substantially or mostly between the central position 40 and the
downstream side wall 24.’” Br. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner that “at
least” and “mostly” “are not recited in the rejected claims” and that
“limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Ans. 12.
The limitation in question requires the seal strip to be disposed in an off-
center position that is substantially between the downstream sidewall and a
central position. The Examiner finds that since seal strip 50
does not pass through the imaginary central line of Bunker’s
airfoil 18 (comparing this to Appellant's central line 41 in figure
2 of the instant application, for example), it is evident that the
seal strip of Bunker ‘556 is disposed on the tip portion at an off-
center position substantially between the downstream side wall
and a central position
as claimed. Ans. 12. Appellant does not persuade us that because item 50
extends along the blade perimeter, item 50 fails to extend in a position that is
substantially between the downstream sidewall and a central position. Br. 8.
Further, Appellant’s reference to benefits (i.e., less material) not claimed are
not persuasive. Br. 8. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7-
13, 15, 22-25 and 27.
Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

5
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 22, 23 and 27
as being anticipated by North
Appellant argues these claims together as a group. Br. 8-9. We select
claim 1 for review with claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 22, 23 and 27 standing or
falling with claim 1. Here, Appellant argues the same limitation discussed
supra contending that North’s blade walls extend “mostly along the
perimeter of the blade tip” and are not “at an off-center position” as claimed.
Br. 9. The Examiner relies on a similar rationale as stated supra. Ans. 13.
Further, the Examiner finds that North’s seal strip has a thickness and this
thickness “extends toward the inner central periphery of the airfoil” and
hence it is disposed “at an off-center position substantially between” a blade
sidewall and a central position as claimed. Ans. 13. Appellant does not
persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 22, 23 and 27.

The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22-27
as being anticipated by Mayer
Appellant argues these claims together as a group. Br. 9-10. We
select claim 1 for review with claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22-27
standing or falling with claim 1. Here, Appellant argues the same limitation
discussed supra contending that “Mayer discloses two ribs laterally offset
from the sidewalls” and that these ribs (50, 52) “are provided on either side[]
of the central position of the blade tip.” Br. 9-10. In view of this, Appellant
contends that “Mayer does not disclose the foregoing features recited in the
independent claims.” Br. 10. The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as
previously stated, i.e., that since Mayer’s items 50, 52 do not pass through
the imaginary central line of Mayer’s airfoil, “it is evident that the seal strip
Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

6
of Mayer is disposed” as claimed. Ans. 14. Appellant does not persuade us
that the Examiner’s findings are in error. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22-27.

The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 21-23 and 27
as being anticipated by Bunker '678
Appellant argues these claims together as a group. Br. 10-11. We
select claim 1 for review with claims 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 21-23 and 27 standing
or falling with claim 1. Here, Appellant argues the same limitation
discussed supra1 contending that Bunker '678 discloses an end wall that
“extends along the periphery of the tip” and does not disclose a seal strip
“disposed on the tip portion at an off-center position” as claimed. Br. 11.
The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as previously stated, i.e., that
since item 30 of Bunker '678 does not pass through the imaginary central
line of the airfoil, “it is evident that the seal strip of Bunker '678 is disposed”
as claimed. Ans. 15. The Examiner additionally finds that since item 30 of
Bunker '678 “possesses a thickness and extends toward the inner central
periphery of the airfoil, it is disposed on the tip portion at an off-center
position” as claimed. Ans. 15-16. Appellant does not persuade us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8,
15, 16, 21-23 and 27.

The rejection of claims 17, 18, 20 and 24-26
as being unpatentable over Bunker '678 and Mayer
and
The rejection of claims 17-19, 24 and 25
as being unpatentable over Bunker '678 and Bunker '556

1 Appellant also references a method limitation found in claim 22. Br. 10.
Appeal 2010-000430
Application 11/394,489

7
In each rejection, Appellant does not present a separate argument but
instead contends that each of these dependent claims “are at least allowable
by virtue of its dependency from” an allowable independent claim. Br. 11-
12. As we have sustained the rejections of the independent claims, we
sustain the rejections of these dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-27 are 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).

AFFIRMED

mls