Ex Parte Datta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2013

11121872 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2013)

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.
11/121,872 05/04/2005 Amitava Datta 23584-00002 3971
28534 7590 02/04/2013
MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP
1800 West Park Drive, Suite 400
WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581-3926
EXAMINER
PICKARD, ALISON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMITAVA DATTA
____________

Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Amitava Datta (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6-9, 11, 12, 16-19, 21, and 23-
34, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to non-metallic brush
seals for sealing a gap between a high pressure and a lower pressure area.”
Spec. 2, ll. 7-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A non[-]metallic brush seal comprising:
a plurality of non-metallic bristles having a length, the
bristles being twisted together substantially about their length
such that the bristles overlap each other;
a support member constructed and arranged to support
the bristles in the twisted configuration;
wherein the plurality of non-metallic bristles forms a
fiber pack, the non-metallic bristles being inclined at about 90°
relative to a longitudinal axis of the support member, and
wherein the support member comprises a metallic front
plate and a metallic back plate which are constructed and
arranged to elastically return the fiber pack from a displaced
position to an original position in a spring back manner
following displacement of the fiber pack;
wherein the metallic front plate defines a set of slots
extending from an inner diameter side toward an outer diameter
side of the metallic front plate to divide the metallic front plate
into multiple flexible front plate segments; and
wherein the metallic back plate defines a set of slots
extending from an inner diameter side toward an outer diameter
side of the metallic back plate to divide the metallic back plate
into multiple flexible back plate segments;
wherein the plurality of non-metallic bristles includes
multiple braids, each braid including a first fiber and a second
fiber which are wound together to form that braid;
wherein the multiple braids form a fiber strip; and
Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

3
wherein the support member is constructed and arranged
to mount to a base and to orient the fiber strip in an axially
inclined position relative to the base.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Steinetz US 5,076,590 Dec. 31, 1991
Flower US 5,090,710 Feb. 25, 1992
Tseng US 5,568,931 Oct. 29, 1996
Wright US 6,308,957 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Fig. 1 and Spec. 5, l. 7 and
Spec. 6, ll. 26-28.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 12, 16-19, 21, and 23-29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Wright,
Steinetz, and Flower.
2. Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 12, 16-19, 21, and 23-34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Tseng, Wright,
Flower, and Steinetz.
ISSUES
Appellant argues the claims subject to each ground of rejection as a
group. Br. 10-23 (arguing the claims subject to the first ground of rejection
as a group) and Br. 23-31 (arguing the claims subject to the second ground
of rejection as a group). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for
each ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Appellant’s Specification discloses a known
brush seal in which the bristles are inclined at about 90° to the axis of the
support member. Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner determined that it would have
Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

4
been obvious to add the front and back plates taught by Wright (first ground
of rejection) or Wright in combination with Tseng (second ground of
rejection) to the known brush seal of the AAPA, to use the braided non-
metallic fiber strands of Steinetz in the known brush seal of the AAPA, and
to modify the support member in the known brush seal such that the bristles
are axially inclined as taught by Flower. Ans. 3-6.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
both grounds of rejection because: (1) the combination of prior art “does not
teach a non[-]metallic brush seal having a plurality of non-metallic bristles,
‘the plurality of non-metallic bristles forms a fiber pack, the non-metallic
bristles being inclined at about 90° relative to a longitudinal axis of the
support member,’ as claimed by Applicant” (Br. 12 (argument 1a), id. at 25
(argument 2a)); (2) there is no motivation to combine the prior art to produce
a non-metallic brush seal having “a plurality of non-metallic bristles” (Br. 20
(argument 1c), id. at 27 (argument 2b)); and (3) there is no motivation to
combine the prior art to produce a non-metallic brush sealing having a
support member comprising metallic front and back plates which are
constructed and arranged to elastically return the fiber pack from a displaced
position to an original position in a spring back manner following
displacement of the fiber pack (Br. 15 (argument 1b), id. at 29 (argument
2c)).
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Does the combination of prior art teach a non-metallic brush seal as
called for in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

5
Did the Examiner articulate adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine the prior art in the manner claimed?
ANALYSIS
With regard to Appellant’s arguments 1a and 2a, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant’s Specification discloses “a known brush seal
comprising a plurality of bristles twisted about their length such that the
bristles are inclined at about 90 degrees with respect to a support member
14/16 and are normal to the rotor surface.” Ans. 3. See also Ans. 5; Spec. 5,
l. 7; Spec. 6, ll. 26-28; fig. 1. See also Br. 6 (Appellant citing prior art
Figure 1 and Spec. 6, l. 27 for support for limitation of claim 1 calling for
the non-metallic bristles 12 being inclined at about 90° relative to a
longitudinal axis of the support member 16). We further find that the
Examiner adequately addressed Appellant’s arguments 1a and 2a in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 6-7 and 9-10. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and reasoning as our own.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments 1c and 2b, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of Steinetz (Ans. 4-6),
which is relied upon to teach the use of non-metallic fibers. We find the
Examiner’s reasoning for modifying the fibers of the AAPA brush seal to
make them non-metallic so as to withstand wear and be useable in high
temperature environments (Ans. 4-6, 9-10) is based directly on the teachings
in Steinetz and is based on rational underpinnings. We further find that the
Examiner adequately addressed Appellant’s arguments 1c and 2b in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 9-10. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and reasoning as our own.
Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

6
With regard to Appellant’s arguments 1b and 2c, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of Wright and Tseng
(Ans. 3, 5), which are relied upon to teach the claimed metallic front and
back plates. We find the Examiner’s reasons for modifying the AAPA brush
seal to include the claimed metallic front and back plates for an evenly
distributed pressure differential and to help improve sealing performance, as
taught by Wright, and to reduce chamfering and vibration to improve the
efficiency and life of the brush seal, as taught by Tseng, (Ans. 3, 5) are
based directly on the teachings in Wright and Tseng and are based on
rational underpinnings. We further find that the Examiner adequately
addressed Appellant’s arguments 1b and 2c in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans.
8-11. In particular, we find that the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 11) that
the slotted plates of both Tseng and Wright, which appear to be substantially
similar structurally to the claimed metallic plates, would function as called
for in claim 1 is based on sound reasoning. Appellant has not met his
burden to show that the prior art structures do not possess this functionality
as an inherent characteristic. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA
1971) (“where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed
subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it
possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject
matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied
on”). As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as our own.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of prior art teaches a non-metallic brush seal as
called for in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-006425
Application 11/121,872

7
The Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine the prior art in the manner claimed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6-9, 11, 12, 16-19,
21, and 23-34 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).

AFFIRMED

Klh