Ex Parte LeBlanc et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 1, 2012

11166823 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 1, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEFFRY ARNOLD LEBLANC, TROY MICHAEL HERNDON,
and ROBERT ALAN NOTTINGHAM
____________

Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeffry Arnold LeBlanc et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-19.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and
claim 20 is allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

2
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “hub and spindle assemblies
having fluid dynamic bearings and associated lubricant seals.” Spec. 1,
para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A hub and spindle assembly for rotating load coupled to
the hub relative to an axis, comprising:
a spindle having a spindle axis, and first and second ends;
a hub disposed coaxially to the spindle, that is rotatable
relative to the spindle axis;
a first thrust bearing adjacent to the first end of the
spindle;
a second thrust bearing adjacent to the second end of the
spindle;
a journal bearing disposed between the first and second
thrust bearings to limit the radial movement of the hub as the
hub rotates about the spindle axis;
a first fluid seal that includes a fluid pump disposed to
pump fluid toward the first thrust bearing, adjacent to the first
thrust bearing;
a ring seal adjacent to the first fluid seal;
a second fluid seal adjacent to the second thrust bearing;
and
a channel that circulates a lubricant fluid between the
first and second fluid seals to purge air.

Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:1
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ichiyama (US 6,404,087 B1; iss. Jun.
11, 2002), Heine (US 6,655,841 B1; iss. Dec. 2, 2003), and Yasui
(US 5,403,098; iss. Apr. 4, 1995).
2. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ichiyama, Heine, Yasui, and Nakazeki
(US 6,390,681 B1; iss. May 21, 2002).
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
Appellants argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. App. Br. 9-13. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-8,
10-15, and 17-19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). Appellants also rely on the same arguments presented for claim 1 to
argue the patentability of claim 16. App. Br. 14. As such, our decision in
this case turns on our determination of the patentability of claim 1.
In particular, Appellants argue that the rejections should not be
sustained because the Examiner erred in finding that Yasui discloses the

1 Appellants further seek reversal of the Examiner’s objection to claim 9 and
of the Examiner’s refusal to enter an amendment to the Specification. App.
Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 11. Such decisions are petitionable and not within the
jurisdiction of the Board. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201; In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA
1971) (stating that decisions an examiner makes in the examination
proceeding that are discretionary or non-substantive in nature are not
appealable to the board and have traditionally been settled by petition).
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

4
claimed “ring seal adjacent to the first fluid seal” because Yasui’s oil
pooling space 4 is not directed to a “seal” function. App. Br. 11-12; Reply
Br. 6-7. The Examiner determined that Yasui teaches “a ring seal (4)
adjacent a first fluid seal (3) to prevent fluid leakage from the inside of the
bearing and prevent foreign matter infiltration.” Ans. 5 (citing Yasui, col. 4,
ll. 44-48). The Examiner explained:
Yasui teaches a ring seal portion (identified as 4 in the
figures of Yasui) which securely holds lubricant and prevents
the lubricant from leaking out of the bearing (Yasui, col. 2,
lines 28-29, also col. 3, lines 30-32), and further, the structure
serves the additional purpose of stopping foreign matter from
entering the interior of the bearing (col. 1, lines 53-57). The
above described structure and purpose is the disclosed purpose
of the invention of Yasui (col. 1, lines 13-16). The purpose of
the ring seal structure of Yasui is to stop lubricant from
escaping out of the bearing (by stopping and pooling it), and
also to stop foreign matter from entering the bearing. Therefore,
the structure as described by Yasui is a seal, since it prevents
the inflow, or outflow of matter beyond the ring seal portion.
Ans. 7-8.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the oil pooling space 4
disclosed in Yasui is a “ring seal adjacent to the first fluid seal” as called for
in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims “their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

5
art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citations omitted).
The Specification describes that conventional sealing techniques for
fluid dynamic bearing systems used in disc drives “include capillary seals
and labyrinth seals.” Spec. 2, para. [0006]. The Specification describes:
Capillary seals are flared channels that rely on the surface
tension of the lubricant fluid to form a meniscus as the walls of
a channel flare apart. Capillary seals can also serve as
reservoirs for lubricant fluid, but they are prone to lubricant loss
through evaporation at the surface of the meniscus. Labyrinth
seals can be used with capillary seals to further reduce lubricant
evaporation by providing an elongate pathway for lubricant
vapor to escape.
Id. The Specification describes a hub and spindle assembly that
includes a pumping seal 107 that pumps lubricant fluid toward a thrust
bearing 108 when the hub is rotating and a ring seal 106 adjacent the
pumping seal 107. Spec. 4, para. [0020]; fig. 2a. The ring seal 106 contains
the lubricant fluid through capillary action and limits the escape of lubricant
fluid vapor when the hub is not rotating. Spec. 4-5, para. [0020]. In
particular, the Specification describes that the ring seal 106 “provides a
capillary barrier 305 to lubricant fluid 307 through its flaring channel width
305 [sic, 302], followed by a constricting channel width 304 connecting with
labyrinth seal 303.” Spec. 4, para. [0020]; fig. 2b.
While the Specification provides an example of an embodiment of
ring seal 106, the Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition
of “seal” or “ring seal.” We must be careful not to read a particular
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

6
embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim
language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the
claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment.”) The challenge is to interpret claims in view
of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations from the
specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). While the specification should be used to
interpret the meaning of a claim, it is improper to confine the claims to the
embodiments found in the specification. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
498 F. 3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). In addition to the
specification, dictionary definitions are also pertinent in this analysis. Id.
An ordinary meaning of “seal” is “[a] means of preventing migration
of fluids, gases, or particles across a joint or opening in a container.” Erik
Oberg et al., 26TH EDITION MACHINERY’S HANDBOOK, 2199 Industrial Press
Inc., New York (2000) (describing methods of sealing plain bearings). The
two major functions that must be achieved by a seal are to “prevent escape
of fluid; and prevent migration of foreign matter from the outside.” Id.
Based on this ordinary meaning, we find that the Examiner’s definition of
“seal” is reasonable and is consistent with the Specification. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

7
Yasui discloses “a hydrodynamic bearing device for securely
preventing internal lubricant disposed between the sleeve and the shaft from
flowing out of the bearing unit . . . [and for preventing] foreign matter from
infiltrating into the bearing unit.” Col. 1, ll. 11-16. The device of Yasui
includes a shaft 1 and a sleeve 2 where “[a] herringbone-type dynamic-
pressure groove is formed on the surface of the shaft 1 or the sleeve 2.”
Col. 2, l. 65 – col. 3, l. 3. Yasui discloses a circumferential groove 1a
formed at one end of the shaft 1 and a shaft-end member 11 having a
diameter identical to that end of the shaft 1 makes up the exterior of the shaft
beyond the groove 1a. Col. 3, ll. 4-7. A large diametric annual step 2a and a
small diametric annular step 2b are formed in the sleeve 2 outside of the
bearing unit and an annular sealing plate 3 is coupled with annular step 2a
outside of the bearing. Col. 3, ll. 7-14. Yasui discloses that “[a] labyrinth is
formed by means of the clearance between the annular sealing plate 3 and
the shaft-end member 11.” Col. 3, ll. 15-17. An oil-pooling space 4 is
formed within the area defined by the shaft 1, circumferential groove 1a,
shaft end member 11, sealing plate 3, sleeve 2, and annular step 2b. Fig. 1.
As such, the oil-pooling space 4 forms a ring around the shaft 1. Yasui
describes that “even when the internal lubricant leaks from the interior of the
bearing body, the leaking lubricant is securely held in the oil-pooling space 4
without leaking out of the hydrodynamic bearing device.” Col. 3, ll. 28-32.
Yasui further describes that “even when foreign matter infiltrates into the
bearing body, this is securely held in the oil-pooling space 4 without being
Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

8
permitted to infiltrate further into the bearing.” Col. 3, ll. 32-35. Yasui
describes that the structures of the hydrodynamic bearing device:
securely hold internal lubricant in the oil-pooling space 4 even
when the bearing device declines causing lubricant to leak out
from the interior of the bearing. As a result, even the slightest
amount of lubricant cannot leak out. Furthermore, even when
foreign matter infiltrates into the bearing body, it is securely
held in the oil-pooling space 4 without being permitted to
infiltrate further into the bearing.
Col. 4, ll. 39-48.
We agree with the Examiner that Yasui discloses that its oil pooling
space 4 acts as a seal in that it discloses the oil pooling space 4 prevents the
lubricant from leaking out of the hydrodynamic bearing device and prevents
foreign matter from infiltrating into the interior of the bearing device.
Ans. 5, 7-8. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Yasui’s oil
pooling space 4 is a ring seal as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-19.
CONCLUSION
The oil pooling space 4 disclosed in Yasui is the claimed “ring seal
adjacent to the first fluid seal” as called for in claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and
10-19.

Appeal 2010-008273
Application 11/166,823

9
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

hh