Ex Parte Foote et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2009

10723846 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DEAN FOOTE CLAYTON DELBRIDGE and
SCOTT DELBRIDGE
____________

Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided1: June 26, 2009
____________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JAMESON LEE and SALLY C.
MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Dean Foote, Scott Delbridge and Clayton Delbridge (“Foote”), the
inventors and real parties in interest, seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of a Final Rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
References Relied on by the Examiner
Walker 4,150,836 Apr. 24, 1979
Williamson 5,115,550 May 26, 1992

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Walker.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Williamson.
The Invention
The invention relates to a sealing configuration for closure doors on
pressure vessels. Spec. 1. Foote discloses, referring to Foote’s figure 2
reproduced below [numbers from figure 2 inserted], a seal configuration
[10] including a body [12] having an opening [14] with inwardly tapered
peripheral sidewalls [26] and a closure [16]. The closure [16] has an
attachment portion [28] with a planar surface [29] from which projects an
axially projecting stopper portion [30] that fits within the opening [14]. The
stopper portion [30] has an endless peripheral seal groove [32] in which a
peripheral seal [34] is positioned. A backing ring [36] is positioned in close
fitting relation around the projecting stopper portion [30] between the seal
groove [32] and the planar surface [29] of the attachment portion [28]. Spec.
3-4.
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

3
Foote’s figure 2 is below:

Figure 2 depicts a sealing configuration.
Claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal Brief,
reads as follows:
A seal configuration, comprising:
a body that contains internal pressure, the body having an
opening with inwardly tapered peripheral sidewalls;
a closure that closes the opening, the closure serving as a
door adapted to be opened and closed at will, the closure having
an attachment portion larger than the opening with a planar
surface from which projects an axially projecting stopper
portion that fits closely within the opening, the stopper portion
having an endless peripheral seal groove extending in spaced
relation around the axis in which is positioned a peripheral seal
that sealingly engages the tapered peripheral sidewalls of the
body in interference fit relation, thereby conforming to the
tapered peripheral sidewalls; and
a backing ring of pliable memory retaining material
sheltered from internal pressure within the body by the
peripheral seal and positioned in close fitting relation around
the projecting stopper portion between the peripheral seal
groove and the planar surface of the attachment portion of the
closure, the backing ring engaging the tapered peripheral
sidewall of the body in interference fit relation and conforming
to the tapered peripheral sidewall while being sufficiently stiff
as to resist extrusion flow under pressure, such that when the
peripheral seal deforms in response to an increase in internal
pressure within the body and extrusion gaps begin to form
between the attachment portion of the closure and the body, the
peripheral seal is extruded in an axial direction against the
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

4
backing ring, that portion of the backing ring engaging the
tapered peripheral sidewall of the body plastically deforming by
changing shape and applying sealing pressure at the extrusion
gaps to prevent the peripheral seal from entering the extrusion
gaps.

(App. Br. 14, Claims Appendix)
B. ISSUE
Has Foote shown that the Examiner incorrectly found that Walker
describes (1) a closure with a planar surface from which projects an axially
projecting stopper portion that fits closely within an opening; (2) a backing
ring positioned in close fitting relation around the projecting stopper portion
between a peripheral seal groove and the planar surface; and (3) a peripheral
seal extruded in an axial direction against the backing ring?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Walker describes, referring to Walker’s figure 1 reproduced below
[numbers from figure 1 inserted], a fitting [10] employing a seal
system [12] including a threaded portion [14] at one end which is
adapted to threadably engage a female boss. Col. 2, ll. 49-54.
Walker’s figure 1 is below:

Figure 1 depicts a fitting and seal system.
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

5
2. Walker describes, referring to Walker’s figure 2 reproduced below
[numbers from figure 2B inserted], that the fitting [10] includes a
thread relief [30] and a concentric cutout [28] that extends from the
thread relief [30] by means of a smooth curve [32] to a frusto-conical
portion [34] which extends generally radially outward just beyond the
radius [36] (fig. 1) of the threaded portion [14] (fig 1) where it is
faired by a smooth curved, semi-toroidal portion [38] into an inwardly
facing cylindrically surfaced ring portion [40] that extends to the face
[20] at an approximate right angle thereto. Col. 3, ll. 2-10.
Walker’s figure 2 is below:

Figure 2 depicts a fitting and seal assembly.
3. An O-ring [24] is provided to form a leak tight seal. Col. 2, ll. 61-62.
4. Cutout [28] provides a pocket to retain a backup ring [42]. Col 3, ll.
10-11.
5. Walker depicts, in figure 2, the backup ring [42] having a side surface
[54] that is in contact with frusto-conical portion [34] and positioned
between the thread relief [30] and face [20].
6. Walker describes, referring to Walker’s figure 3A reproduced below
[numbers from figure 3A inserted], that when the fitting [10] is
installed within the boss [16], the O-ring [24] is deformed to form a
seal with the backup ring [42] blocking the O-ring [24] from access to
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

6
any gap [26] which might form between the boss [16] and the fitting
[10]. Col. 3, ll. 46-50.
Walker’s figure 3A is below:

Figure 3A depicts the deformed seal assembly.
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
E. ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Walker
Claim 1 recites (disputed limitations in italics): “a closure . . . with a
planar surface from which projects an axially projecting stopper portion
that fits closely within the opening. . . .” App. Br. Claim App’x. 14.
The Examiner finds that Walker describes a closure having a planar
surface (i.e., face [20]) and an axially projecting stopper portion; identifying
the stopper portion as the groove to retain the O-ring [24] and the surface
that contacts the cylindrically surfaced ring portion [40]. Final Rejection 2;
Ans. 3, 6. The Examiner further finds that the portion of the stopper having
the groove fits within an opening in the boss [16]. Ans. 6. We understand
the Examiner to find that Walker’s threaded portion [14], thread relief [30],
and cutout [28] which includes smooth curve [32], frusto-conical portion
[34], and the smooth curved semi-toroidal portion [38] that ultimately
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

7
contacts the cylindrically surfaced ring portion [40] which extends to the
face [20] (i.e., planar surface) corresponds to the claimed axially projecting
stopper portion.
Foote argues that Walker does not disclose a planar surface from
which projects an axially projecting stopper portion that fits closely within
the opening because Walker’s surfaced ring portion [40] does not project
axially such that it fits closely within the opening. App. Br. 9.
Foote’s argument that Walker’s surfaced ring portion [40] cannot
correspond to the claimed stopper portion is misplaced. The Examiner does
not find that the surfaced ring portion [40] alone corresponds to the stopper
portion. Final Rejection 2; Ans. 3, 6. As explained immediately above,
Walker describes the structure corresponding to the claimed stopper portion
(i.e., threaded portion [14], thread relief [30], cutout [28] comprising smooth
curve [32], frusto-conical portion [34] and semi-toroidal portion [38] that
contacts the surfaced ring portion [40]). At least the threaded portion [14] of
that structure closely fits within the opening in the boss [16]. The claim
language does not require the entire stopper portion to fit closely within the
opening.
Foote argues that Walker’s threaded portion [14] or thread relief [30]
can not be considered the claimed stopper portion because it does not extend
from surface [20], but extends from cutout [28]. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis in
Brief).
Again, Foote’s argument is misplaced. The Examiner did not find
that the threaded portion [14] or thread relief portion [30] alone corresponds
to the stopper portion. Threaded portion [14] or thread relief portion [30] is
just one part of the stopper portion. The stopper portion comprises the
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

8
threaded portion [14], thread relief [30], and cutout [28] comprising smooth
curve [32], frusto-conical portion [34], and smooth curved semi-toroidal
portion [38] that ultimately extends from the face [20] by way of the
cylindrically surfaced ring portion [40]. The claim 1 language requires “a
planar surface from which projects an axially projecting stopper portion.”
The claim language does not require the entire stopper portion to project
axially. Nor does the claim language require the portion that projects axially
to be up against or physically connected to the planar surface. If a portion of
the stopper portion projects axially, the claim language is satisfied. Because
a portion of the stopper portion (i.e., threaded portion [14] or thread relief
portion [30]) projects axially from the planar surface [20], the claim
language is met.
Claim 1 further recites (disputed limitations in italics): “a backing ring
. . . positioned in close fitting relation around the projecting stopper portion
between the peripheral seal groove and the planar surface . . . .” App. Br.
Claim App’x. 14.
The Examiner finds that Walker describes a backup ring [42] in close
fitting relation with the structure corresponding to the claimed stopper
portion. Final Rejection 3; Ans. 2-3; 6. The Examiner further finds that
Walker’s backup ring [42] has a lip [54] (i.e., side surface) that contacts the
frusto-conical portion [34] of the structure corresponding to the claimed
stopper portion and is thereby in close fitting relation around the
corresponding stopper portion structure between the peripheral groove
having O-ring [24] (i.e., peripheral seal groove) and the face [20] (i.e.,
planar surface). Ans. 7.
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

9
Foote argues that Walker does not describe the disputed limitations.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Foote argues that although Walker’s
backup ring may be in close fitting relation with a portion of cutout [28], it is
not in close fitting relation with a projecting stopper portion. Reply Br. 5.
Foote’s argument is again misplaced. Foote’s argument is premised
on the notion that Walker’s structure corresponding to the claimed
projecting stopper portion is a distinct element from Walker’s cutout [28].
We have already explained why that argument misapprehends the
Examiner’s position and findings. The Examiner finds that Walker’s backup
ring [42] is positioned in close fitting relation around the structure
corresponding to the claimed stopper portion (i.e., threaded portion [14],
thread relief [30], cutout [28] comprising smooth curve [32], frusto-conical
portion [34] and semi-toroidal portion [38]) between the peripheral groove
having O-ring [24] (i.e., peripheral seal groove) and face [20] (i.e., planar
surface). Ans. 7. The Examiner’s findings in this respect are reasonable and
Foote has not shown that they are not.
Foote further argues that the claimed seal groove limitation can not be
met by just Walker’s thread relief [30] (i.e., the peripheral groove having O-
ring [24]). Reply Br. 5. Foote argues that Walker’s cutout [28] must form
part, if not all, of the structure corresponding to the claimed seal groove
since it is formed like a groove and acts like a groove by receiving and
retaining the seals. Reply Br. 5. Foote further argues that Walker’s backup
ring [42] cannot be positioned between the structures corresponding to the
claimed seal groove and planar surface because it is positioned within the
cutout [28], i.e., what Foote argues must be the claimed seal groove. Reply
Br. 5 (emphasis in Brief).
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

10
Foote’s arguments are unpersuasive. Foote does not direct us to
objective evidence which demonstrates that one with ordinary skill in the art
would not consider that portion immediately above Walker’s thread relief
[30] as corresponding to the claimed peripheral seal groove (i.e., without
cutout [28]). Moreover, Foote does not explain why the space immediately
above thread relief [30] alone cannot correspond to the claimed peripheral
seal groove. Walker’s backup ring [42], while located within cutout [28]
and around the structure corresponding to a portion of the claimed stopper
portion (i.e., threaded portion [14], thread relief [30], and cutout [28]
comprising smooth curve [32], frusto-conical portion [34] and semi-toroidal
portion [38]) is also positioned between Walker’s thread relief [30], (i.e., the
peripheral seal groove) and the face [20] (i.e., planar surface) and thus meets
the disputed limitation. The Examiner’s findings in this respect are
reasonable and Foote has not shown otherwise.
Claim 1 further recites (disputed limitations in italics): “a backing ring
. . . , the peripheral seal is extruded in an axial direction against the backing
ring . . . .” App. Br. Claim App’x. 14.
Foote argues that its backing ring is structurally defined to resist
expansion of the peripheral seal in an axial direction. App. Br. 10. Foote
argues that Walker’s backup ring [42] is retained in cutout [28] and resists
an expansion of O-ring [24] in a radial direction. The language of claim 1
does not require the backing ring to resist expansion of the peripheral seal in
an axial direction. Thus, the quoted claim language encompasses Walker’s
backing ring structure. .
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

11
Foote sets forth a similar argument as the one above. That argument
is best understood by referring to Walker’s figures 2 and 3, reproduced
below.
Walker’s figure 2 is below:

Figure 2 depicts a fitting and seal assembly.

Walker’s figure 3A is below:

Figure 3A depicts the deformed seal assembly.
Foote argues that although it agrees that Walker describes that the
peripheral seal (O-ring [24]) is extruded in an axial direction (e.g., along axis
formed by [30]), that because the peripheral seal (O-ring [24]) is also
extruded in a radial direction (e.g., along the cut out portion [34] and [28],
for example), and that the radial extrusion is what is against the backing ring
(backup ring [42]), Walker does not anticipate claim 1. Reply Br. 5.
Foote’s argument is misplaced. Claim 1 does not foreclose the peripheral
seal from being extruded in multiple directions. Moreover, Foote has not
sufficiently demonstrated that what Foote characterizes as Walker’s
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

12
extrusion “radially” is not extrusion in an “axial direction.” Since Walker
describes that the O-ring [24] is extruded in one axial direction (the axis
formed along [30] of figure 2) and then is extruded in an axial direction
(along the axis formed by the straight wall of portion [34] of figure 2) the
disputed limitation is met. Walker, Col. 3, ll. 46-50; Figs. 2 and 3A. Foote
has not sufficiently demonstrated otherwise.
For all these reasons, Foot has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding claim 1 anticipated by Walker.
Anticipation by Williamson
The Examiner alternatively rejected claim 1 as anticipated by
Williamson. Since we sustain the rejection of claim 1 on other grounds we
do not reach the merits of the rejection of claim 1 over Williamson.
F. CONCLUSION
Foote has not shown that the Examiner incorrectly found that Walker
describes (1) a closure with a planar surface from which projects an axially
projecting stopper portion that fits closely within an opening; (2) a backing
ring positioned in close fitting relation around the projecting stopper portion
between a peripheral seal groove and the planar surface; and (3) a peripheral
seal extruded in an axial direction against the backing ring.
G. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Walker is affirmed.
We do not reach the merits of the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Williamson.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
the appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2009-003201
Application 10/723,846

13
AFFIRMED

rvb

cc:

CHRISTENSEN, O’CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC
1420 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WA 98101-2347