Ex Parte Juh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2019

14600033 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/600,033
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
01/20/2015 Christopher M. Juh
02/21/2019
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.
P A-0034898-US 8388
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 CUMAR,NATHAN
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. JUH and GEORGE E. ALLEN
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corp. Br. 3.
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Brief ("Br.," filed July 27,
2016), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 3, 2016), and the
Non-Final Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed May 19, 2016).
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants purportedly invented a seal assembly that includes a
housing that supports a seal ring, which may be made of carbon. Abstract.
The seal assembly further includes a radial restrictor that has a cavity
defined by a portion of the housing and the seal ring that is capable of
receiving an axially projecting protuberance engaged to another portion of
housing and the seal ring. Id. According to Appellants, the radial restrictor
prevents undesired movement of the seal ring during assembly. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 15, and 19 are independent claims and these claims are
directed to "[a] seal assembly," [a] seal assembly," and "[a] method of
assembling a seal assembly," respectively. Br. 11, 13-14 (Claims
Appendix). Claims 2-14 depend directly or indirectly from independent
claim 1; claims 16-18 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim
15; and claim 20 depends directly from independent claim 19. Independent
claim 15 is illustrative of the disclosed invention and is reproduced below:
15. A seal assembly comprising:
an annular housing oriented about an axis;
a plurality of sealing elements distributed
circumferentially within the housing;
a spring constructed and arranged to bias the plurality of
sealing elements radially inward;
a plurality of resilient members, wherein at least one of
the plurality of resilient members biases a respective one of the
plurality of sealing elements axially against the housing; and
a plurality of radial restrictors, wherein at least one of
the plurality of radial restrictors is carried between the housing
and a respective one of the plurality of sealing elements.
Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
Prior Art Relied Upon
Stein
Muraki
U.S. Patent No. 4,082,296
U.S. Patent No. 6,425,583 Bl
Rejections on Appeal
issued Apr. 4, 1978;
filed May 26, 197 6
issued July 30, 2002;
filed Sept. 13, 1999
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(1)3 as
anticipated by Stein. Non-Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 1-14 and 18 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combined teachings of Stein and Muraki. Non-Final Act. 5-
13.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable under § 103 over the
teachings of Stein alone. Non-Final Act. 13-14.
Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that Figures 1-3 of Stein, specifically flange 24,
segments 10 of seal ring 8, garter spring 20, and coil springs 26, disclose the
orientation of "annular housing," "plurality of sealing elements," "spring,"
and "plurality of resilient members," as recited in independent claim 15.
Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing Stein, 2:50-65, Figs. 1-3). Of particular
importance to this case is the Examiner's reliance on Stein's locking pins 44
to disclose the orientation of the "plurality of radial restrictors," as recited in
independent claim 15. Id. (citing Stein, 3:1-5, Fig. 1).
3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) ("AIA"), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
application at issue was filed on January 20, 2015, which is after the
effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the post-AIA
version of35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
3
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants contend that Stein's locking pins 44 do not disclose the
"radial restrictors," as recited in independent claim 15, because they do not
restrict radial movement. Br. 7. Instead, Appellants argue that Stein's
locking pins 44 are anti-rotation features that permit radial movement of
segments 10 of seal ring 8 towards and away from shaft 6. Id. ( citing Stein,
3 :2-6, Fig. 1)
II. ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner presents sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Stein discloses the "radial restrictors," as
recited in independent claim 15, and similarly recited in independent claims
1 and 19.
III. ANALYSIS
§ 102(a)(l) Rejection Based on Stein
Claim 15
Based on the record before us, we discern no error in the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claims 15, which recites, in relevant
part, "radial restrictors."
The disagreement between Appellants and the Examiner centers on
the scope and meaning of the claim term "radial restrictors," which must be
given its broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that, during examination, "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow"). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claim
4
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
Upon reviewing the specification, we do not find an explicit definition
for the claim term "radial restrictors." The specification, however, includes
certain disclosures that are helpful in ascertaining the scope and meaning of
this claim term. For instance, when referring to Figures 2 through 4, the
specification discloses that "[ a ]t least one radial restrictor 70 of the assembly
60 is generally carried between the housing 62 and the ring 64 for limiting
radial movement of the ring 64 within the housing 62." Spec. ,r 38
( emphasis added). In addition, when discussing maintenance operation and
assembly of seal assembly 60, the specification discloses that "the radial
restrictor 70 facilitates assembly by limiting the amount that the seal
elements can drop (i.e., unintentional radially inward movement)." Id. ,r 46
( emphasis added). Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
we construe the claim term "radial restrictors" as elements capable of
limiting radial movement, but they are not required to limit radial movement
completely. Stated differently, limiting radial movement in this context
includes partially limiting radial movement, as well as completely limiting
radially movement. With this construction in mind, we tum to the merits of
the Examiner's anticipation rejection based on Stein.
As we explain previously, the Examiner finds that Stein's locking pins
44 disclose the "radial restrictors," as recited in independent claim 15.
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Stein, 3:1-5, Fig. 1). In the Answer, the Examiner
provides an annotated, exploded view of Figure 1 of Stein, reproduced
5
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
below, that illustrates how locking pins 44 partially limit the radial
movement of segments 10 of seal ring 8. Ans. 12.
¢,{ ~~c-.:.e ,+f
\ ;
\,!m,
,~~~
~
·\~ ~
:/ ~ ~f.?lf.:,-d,::)('.: '>.;-\1:'Y:.·~(:
In the annotated, exploded view of Figure of 1 of Stein, reproduced above,
the Examiner finds that locking pins 44 loosely fit in openings 46 of
segments 10 of seal ring 8. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, the inner
diameter D of openings 46 are larger than the outer dimension d of locking
pins 44. Id. The Examiner then finds that "radial movement of each of ...
segments 10 is limited to the distance between the inner diameter of ...
[openings] 46 and the outer dimension of [locking pins] 44." Id. ( citing
Stein, [57], 2:50-3:5, Fig. 1).
We agree with the Examiner's findings in this regard. Consistent with
our construction above, Stein's locking pins 44 disclose the claimed "radial
restrictors" because they partially limit the radial movement of segments 10
6
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
of seal ring 8 by precluding these segments from moving into the area
covered by the outer dimensions d of locking pins 44. We recognize that
Stein's locking pins 44 still permit segments 10 of seal ring 8 "to move
towards and away from shaft 6" in some fashion. Stein, 3 :2---6. Our
construction, however, does not require Stein's locking pins 44 to limit
radial movement completely. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in
determining that Stein anticipates the subject matter of independent claim
15.
Claims 16 and 17
Appellants do not address separately the patentability of dependent
claims 16 and 17. Br. 8. We, therefore, group these dependent claims with
their underlying base claim. Consequently, dependent claims 16 and 17 fall
with independent claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
§ 103 Rejection Based the Combined Teachings of Stein and Muraki
Claims 1-14 and 18
Appellants contend that Muraki does not remedy the purported
deficiency in Stein discussed above in the context of the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claim 15. Br. 8. As we explain
previously, there is no such deficiency in Stein for Muraki to remedy. It
follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combined
teachings of Stein and Muraki render the subject matter of claims 1-14 and
18 unpatentable.
§ 103 Rejection Based on the Teachings of Stein Alone
Claims 19 and 20
Appellants rely upon the same argument presented against the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 15 to rebut the
7
Appeal2017-009086
Application 14/600,033
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 20. Br. 9. For the same
reason discussed above in the context of the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claim 15, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the
teachings of Stein alone render the subject matter of claims 19 and 20
unpatentable.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
(1) claims 15-17 as anticipated under§ 102(a)(l); and (2) claims 1-14 and
18-20 as unpatentable under§ 103.
V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8