Ex Parte Hatch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2012

11224362 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2012)

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.
11/224,362 09/12/2005 Frederick R. Hatch SP-40072 (71024-504) 2934
59582 7590 08/21/2012
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEAVER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
EXAMINER
PICKARD, ALISON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte FREDERICK R. HATCH
____________________

Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRADFORD E. KILE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KILE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frederick R. Hatch (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1-13, 15-22, and 24-26. Claims 14, 23, 27,
and 28 are withdrawn and claims 29-50 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a radial shaft seal, that is bonded
directly to an elastomeric casing layer.” Spec. 1, para. [0001].
Appellant’s Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 illustrates the invention and discloses a shaft seal [10] that
includes a rigid casing [12] enrobed in a surrounding elastomeric envelope
[18].
A seal attachment [28] carries a seal [36] that is bonded [34] along the
entire length of the seal attachment. The seal attachment is joined with the
elastomeric envelope [18] by an axial spring component [20].
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

3
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A radial seal comprising:
a rigid casing;
an elastomeric casing positioned interior of
and bonded to said rigid casing, said elastomeric
casing having an axial spring member which
extends radially inwardly from and axially along
said rigid casing, said axial spring member
comprising a neck portion which extends from said
elastomeric casing and a seal attachment portion
that is attached to said neck portion and has a
bonding surface;
a pre-stressed fluoropolymer seal having an
axial length with a bonding surface extending over
the entirety of said axial length and an opposite
sealing surface, and
a bond extending over and joining the
entirety of said bonding surface of the pre-stressed
fluoropolymer seal to said bonding surface of said
seal attachment portion, wherein said seal
attachment portion is operative to provide sealing
contact of the fluoropolymer seal along the entirety
of said sealing surface when engaged with a
mating surface of a shaft.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-13, 18-22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucher (US 4,650,196, iss. Mar. 17,
1987) in view of Longtin (US 6,620,361 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003).
2. Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bucher in view of Longtin and further in view of Antonini
(US 4,588,195, iss. May 13, 1986) (hereinafter Antonini ‘195).
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

4
3. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bucher in view of Longtin and further in view of Sink
(US 5,577,741, iss. Nov. 26, 1996).
4. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bucher in view of Longtin and further in view of Antonini
(US 4,844,484, iss. Jul. 4, 1989) (hereinafter Antonini ‘484).

OPINION
The Bucher patent discloses a ring like radial shaft seal. (Col. 1, ll. 5-
6.) Figure 1 of the Bucher is reproduced below:

Figure 1 of the Bucher patent discloses a rigid seal support member
[1] that is L-shaped in cross-section. The rigid seal support is provided with
an elastomeric covering [7]. A spring member [13] terminates in a portion
[23] that carries a ring shaped or annular sealing member [14] composed of
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The annular sealing member [14]
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

5
surrounds and rests upon a shaft that is sealed off exclusively by the sealing
member [14]. (Col. 3, ll. 10-30.) See also Ans. 3.
The Examiner notes that the sealing member [14] “is bonded to at
least over half the bonding surface of the attachment portion (col. 4, lines
38-41), which seems to imply it could extend even further.” (Ans. 3.) The
Examiner continues “[r]egardless Longtin teaches boding [sic] the elastomer
across the entire axial length of the fluoropolymer seal . . . .” Id.
The Longtin patent discloses in Figure 1 an annular non-elastic insert
[30] formed of PTFE material including an annular lip [36] that is carried by
an elastomeric backing [28]. (Col. 2, ll. 34-46.) See also Ans. 3.
Appellant points out that the primary Bucher patent is concerned
about heat dissipation at the free end of the seal and that modifying Bucher
in view of Longtin to extend the bonding surface shown in Longtin over the
entire length of the Bucher seal is counter to the purpose and function of the
Bucher seal. See Reply Br. 5. Appellant notes at page 4 of the Appeal Brief
that the backing for the Bucher seal always stops short of covering the entire
length of the seal in all of the drawings. For example, Appellant notes that
Bucher states at column 2, lines 16-20 that “the sealing member extending
beyond the second end of the spring member, with this projecting portion of
the sealing member being adapted to sealingly rest against a shaft.” Pointing
to column 2, lines 29-37 of Bucher, Appellant further notes the importance
of the Bucher’s sealing member extending beyond the spring member, “the
sealing member projects beyond the end face of the spring member, . . . so
that the medium that is to be sealed off can flow completely around this end
of the sealing member.” See App. Br. 4. Again at column 5, lines 12-14
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

6
Bucher states that “the sealing member 14b also extends beyond the end face
17 of the spring member 13b.” See Id.
In the Summary of the Invention section Bucher states at column 2,
lines 39-46:
[O]nly that portion of the sealing member that
projects beyond the spring member rests against
the component that is to be sealed off. During
operation of the inventive radial shaft-sealing
element, the greatest heat results at this location.
Due to the previously described configuration, this
heat can be satisfactorily dissipated by the sealing
medium itself, so that the sealing member heats up
only slightly.

In view of the consistent teaching of Bucher that the free end of the
seal is not to be covered for heat dissipation purposes it is illogical to assert
that the very thrust of the Bucher disclosure can be disregarded by covering
the entire seal surface as recited in claim 1 of Appellant’s application, as
proposed by the Examiner.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1, and its dependent claims
2-13, 18-22, and 25 of Appellant’s application, is not obvious over a
combination of Bucher in view of Longtin and the Examiner’s rejection on
that ground is reversed. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 15-
17 as unpatentable over Bucher, Longtin, and Antonini ‘195; of claim 24 as
unpatentable over Bucher, Longtin, and Sink; and of claim 26 as
unpatentable over Bucher, Longtin, and Antonini ‘484, the addition of
Appeal 2010-008171
Application 11/224,362

7
Antonini ‘195, Sink, or Antonini ‘484, respectively, does not remedy the
deficiencies of the combined teachings of Bucher and Longtin as described
supra. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 15-17,
24, and 26 likewise cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13, 15-22, and 24-26
is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh