Ex Parte Caprario

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13234338 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/234,338 09/16/2011 Joseph T. Caprario
54549 7590 03/29/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA18546U;67097-1589PUS1 6003
EXAMINER
WHITE, DWAYNE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH T. CAPRARIO
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 2-7, 9-13, 21-26, and 28-31. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 "United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest of the present
application." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates to a turbine engine, and more
particularly to a seal system therefor." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Illustrative Claim
23. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a spool defining an axis and including a thrust bearing
supporting a hub and a compressor mechanically
coupled to a turbine by said hub;
a first non-contacting dynamic seal including a first body
attached to a first floating shoe configured to seal
first rotatable inner surfaces of said spool to define
a first flow cavity, the first floating shoe radially
inward of said first rotatable inner surfaces with
respect to said axis;
a second non-contacting dynamic seal including a second
body attached to a second floating shoe configured
to seal second rotatable inner surfaces of said spool
to define a second flow cavity, the second floating
shoe radially inward of said second rotatable inner
surfaces with respect to said axis; and
a third non-contacting dynamic seal including a third
body attached to a third floating shoe configured to
seal rotatable outer surfaces of said hub and is
positioned in an axial direction relative to said axis
between said first and second floating shoes to
define said first flow cavity and said second flow
cavity, the third floating shoe radially outward of
said rotatable outer surfaces with respect to said
axis; and
wherein each of said first non-contacting dynamic seal,
said second non-contacting dynamic seal and said
third non-contacting dynamic seal is a hydrostatic
seal.
2
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
Earle
Petrie
Grabowski
References
us 3,433,020
us 3,549,270
US 2011/0000217 Al
Rejections
Mar. 18, 1969
Dec. 22, 1970
Jan. 6, 2011
I. The Examiner rejects claims 2-7, 9-12, 21-26, and 28-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Earle and Petrie. (Final
Action 12.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Earle, Petrie, and Grabowski. (Final Action 17.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 22, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as noncompliant with the written description
requirement. (Final Action 11.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 22, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. (Final Action 12.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 23 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-7, 9-13, 21, 22, 24--26, and 28-31)
depending directly or indirectly therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 23 recites an "engine" comprising a first "seal" and a
second "seal." (Id.) The first seal includes a "body" attached to a "shoe"
that is "configured to seal first rotatable inner surfaces" and that is "radially
inward of said first rotatable inner surfaces." (Id.) The second seal includes
a "body" attached to a "shoe" that is "configured to seal second rotatable
inner surfaces" and that is "radially inward of said second rotatable inner
surfaces." (Id.)
3
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
Rejections I and II
As indicated above, independent claim 23 requires the engine to
comprise a first seal and a second seal, each having a body attached to a
shoe configured to seal rotatable surfaces. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Earle discloses an engine comprising a first seal 61
and a second seal 73. (See Final Action 12-13.) These seals, as designated
by the Examiner, are shown below in our annotated version of Earle's
Figure 2 and enlarged portions thereof.
First Seal 61 Second Seal 73
This drawing depicts a strut-connected conical member 60 engaging a
"conical rotor element 38" at the first seal 61; and a strut-connected conical
4
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
member 70 engaging a "conical rotor element 40" at the second seal 73.
(Earle, col. 4, 11. 4--5, 18-19, 27-28.)
As also indicated above, independent claim 23 requires the shoe of the
first seal to be "configured to seal first rotatable inner surfaces" and to be
"radially inward of said first rotatable inner surfaces"; and independent
claim 23 requires the shoe of the second seal to be "configured to seal
second rotatable inner surfaces" and to be "radially inward of said second
rotatable inner surfaces." (Appeal Br., Claims App., emphasis added.)
As shown in the enlarged-drawing portions above, Earle's first seal 61
is configured to seal radially outer rotatable surfaces of the conical rotor
element 3 8 and is situated radially outward from these surfaces; and Earle's
second seal 73 is configured to seal radially outer rotatable surfaces of the
conical rotor element 40 and is situated radially outward from these
surfaces. Thus, as noted by the Examiner, Earle does not disclose "that the
first and second seals are configured to seal first and second rotatable inner
surfaces" and "instead disclos[ es] the opposite relationship." (Final
Action 13.)
However, the Examiner finds that Petrie teaches a gas-turbine-engine
seal in which "[the] rotary element is the radially outer component of the
seal structure, while the stationary element is the radially inner component."
(Id. at 13-14.) The Examiner determines that, in view of Petrie's teachings,
it would have been obvious to modify Earle's engine "by utilizing seals at
the rotor/stator interfaces that seal rotatable inner surfaces." (Final
Action 14.) According to the Examiner, this modification "only involves the
radial inversion of the two constituent parts" (Answer 4) or, in other words,
a "mere reversal" of parts (Final Action 14 ).
5
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
The Appellant argues that the Examiner's proposed modification "is
not a predictable combination of Earle and Petrie." (Appeal Br. 4.) The
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's modification does not take into
account that Earle's first seal 61 and second seal 73 must "seal[] against"
strut-connected conical member 60 and strut-connected conical member 70.
(Id. at 5.) According to the Appellant, the Examiner has not established that
the "teachings of Petrie are applicable" to Earle's seal locations. (Reply
Br. 3.)
We are persuaded by the Appellant's position because the Examiner
does not address adequately how the alleged "mere reversal" of parts would
accommodate Earle's strut-connected conical members 60 and 70. The
Examiner explains that "[a]s modified," Earle's first and second shoes "are
positioned radially inward of the first and second rotatable surfaces," (Final
Action 14), and we diagram this repositioning of seal 61 and seal 73 in the
annotated version of Earle's Figure 2 below.
sN1.l 61 fa repositioned here
As shown in this drawing, the repositioned first seal 61 is situated on the
opposite side of the rotor element 38 as the seal-engaging region of Earle's
6
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
strut-connected conical member 60; and the repositioned second seal 73 is
situated on the opposite side of the rotor element 40 as the seal-engaging
region of Earle's strut-connected conical member 70.
The Examiner does not explain, and we do not see, how Earle's
repositioned seals 61 and 73 could still seal against the strut-connected
conical members 60 and 70. The Examiner's proposed modification would
appear to require Earle's strut-connected members 60 and 70 to somehow
pass radially inward through rotary walls defining fluid chambers 62 and 63
to engage their respective repositioned seals; and the Examiner provides us
with no insight into how this would accomplished. We note that Petrie does
little to help solve this dilemma, as its so-called stationary portion 25 need
not pass radially through a fluid-chamber-defining wall for seal engagement.
(See Petrie, Fig. 2.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Earle and Petrie.
The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to the
dependent claims (see Final Action 14--17) do not compensate for the above-
discussed shortcoming in the rejection of independent claim 23. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 21,
22, 24--26, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Earle
and Petrie; and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Earle, Petrie and
Grabowski.
Rejections III and IV
As indicated above, independent claim 23 recites "seals" and requires
each of these seals to include a "body" attached to a "shoe." (Appeal Br.,
7
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
Claims App.) More particularly, independent claim 23 requires the first seal
to include "a first floating shoe," requires the second seal to include "a
second floating shoe," and requires the third seal to include "a third floating
shoe." (Id.) Dependent claim 22, and claims 28, 29, and 31 depending
therefrom, further require that "each of said first floating shoe, said second
floating shoe and said third floating shoe includes radial sealing surfaces
having a planar geometry in said axial direction between an adjacent set of
side walls extending in a radial direction with respect to said axis." (Id.)
According to the Examiner, dependent claim 22 recites "shapes and
relationships" that were not described in the Specification as originally filed.
(Final Action 11.) The Examiner determines that dependent claim 22
therefore recites "new matter" and "the scope of the claim is rendered
unclear." (Id. at 11, 12.)
The Appellant argues that Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the original
Specification depict the "surfaces of the seals" in "relative axial and radial
directions" and depict a floating shoe "having a planar geometry between
[the] sidewalls." (Appeal Br. 7.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because we agree with the
Examiner that the cited drawings, expressly characterized by the Appellant
as schematic figures (see Spec. i-fi-16-12), are not "detailed enough to show
[the] specific shapes" set forth in dependent claim 22. (Answer 12.)
Although a schematic illustration may sometimes be sufficient to show
possession and satisfy definiteness concerns, such is not the case here. We
note that the rectangular shapes shown in the drawings do not depict other
non-schematic features of the seals, such as "a hydrodynamic film" that
"separates the floating shoe 88 from the rotating component." (Spec. i125.)
8
Appeal2017-005760
Application 13/234,338
The Specification also implies that the floating shoe shown in drawings may
be a different embodiment than an embodiment in which "sealing is
accomplished using hydrostatic principles." (Id.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 22, 28,
29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement; and we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claims 22, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-7, 9-13, 21-26,
and 28-31under35 U.S.C. § 103.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 22, 28, 29, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9