Ex Parte Nguyen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13144282 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
13/144,282 07/12/2011 Dennis P. Nguyen OTD-031378US
(CMRN:0104)
4353
64833 7590 01/30/2018
FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
KONERU, LAKSHMI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 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 DENNIS P. NGUYEN and KIRK P. GUIDRY
Appeal 2017-001796
Application 13/144,2821
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 13-20, and 29-37. Final Office
Action (November 2, 2015) (hereinafter “Final Act.”).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants contest the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness of the claimed annular sealing system and
1 Appellants identify Cameron International Corporation, as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 2 (February 29, 2016) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
2 Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
claims 7 and 9-12 are withdrawn, claims 21-26 are canceled, and claims 27
and 28 are allowed. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001796
Application 13/144,282
method. The Examiner’s determination of obviousness is based on a finding
that the prior art discloses the claimed pre-loading of the annular seal top
and bottom seal sections. Because this finding is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, we reverse the rejections as set forth in the
Final Office Action.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to a “full bore compression
sealing method.” Specification 1, Title (filed July 12, 2011) (hereinafter
“Spec.”). Claims 1, 14, 19, and 30 are the independent claims at issue in the
present appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system, comprising:
an annular seal, comprising:
a top seal section;
a bottom seal section; and
a core seal section coupled to and disposed
between the top seal section and the bottom seal section,
wherein the core seal section comprises top and bottom
faces and radially inner and outer faces, wherein, prior to
an application of an axial load external from the annular
seal, the annular seal itself has at least portions of the top
and bottom seal sections angled away from one another
and pre-loaded to bias the top and bottom seal sections
and the core seal section.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
EVIDENCE
The Examiner’s decision relies upon the following evidence:
McGee
Tohill
Ueda
US 4,349,205
US 4,353,560
US 5,803,464
Sept. 14, 1982
Oct. 12, 1982
Sept. 8, 1998
2
Appeal 2017-001796
Application 13/144,282
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 13-20, and 29-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McGee and Ueda.
2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McGee, Ueda, and Tohill.
ISSUE
Each of the independent claims on appeal requires that the annular
seal has at least portions of seal sections pre-loaded, prior to an application
of an axial load external from the annular seal, to bias the annular seal. The
issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Ueda discloses the claimed pre-loaded seal sections.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness over McGee and Ueda
The Examiner relied on McGee to disclose many of the features of the
annular seal recited in independent claims 1, 14, 19, and 30; however, the
Examiner found that “McGee does not disclose that the top and bottom seal
sections are pre-loaded to bias the top and bottom seal sections and the core
seal section.” Final Act. 3^1 (discussing claims 1 and 14); id. at 8-10
(discussing claims 19 and 30). The Examiner found that Ueda discloses this
pre-loading limitation because rings 8 and 9 are brought into tight contact
with the end faces of die mold packing part 1. Id. at 2, 4 (citing Ueda, col. 8,
11. 48-67, Figs. 8, 16). The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to preload the top and bottom seal sections of McGee using the
preloading method of Ueda “to prevent leakage through minute gaps
3
Appeal 2017-001796
Application 13/144,282
existing in the sealing parts and exhibit sure sealing properties at a low
tightening force.” Id. (citing Ueda, Abstract).
The Examiner inferred pre-loading in Ueda based on Ueda’s
disclosure that rings 8 and 9 are brought into tight contact with the end faces
of die mold packing part 1. Final Act 2. Such an inference is not adequately
supported by Ueda’s disclosure.
Ueda discloses that ring-like seal members 8 and 9 are brought into
tight contact with the end faces in the axial direction of die mold packing
part 1 and that the seal members 8 and 9, which are formed using a 1.0 mm
punched polytetrafluoroethylene resin sheet, are compressed together with
the die mold packing part 1. Ueda, col. 8,11. 54-56, 61-65. Ueda does not
disclose the degree of compression or the nature of the tight contact between
the seal members 8 and 9 and the packing part 1 such that we can infer
sufficient deformation to cause pre-loading of the members. See Reply Br. 5
(Appellants asserting that “tight” does not imply any pre-load and the use of
compression to laminate the seal members to the packing part does not
necessarily mean that a pre-load exists in the laminated assembly because
the parts could relax after the lamination process). Thus, Ueda’s disclosure
is insufficient to find that pre-loading necessarily exists.
The Examiner also speculated that pre-loading occurs because the
ring-like seal members 8 and 9 are compressed together with the die mold
packaging part 1 “with a low tightening force to provide sufficient
deformation and exhibit sure sealing properties.” Examiner’s Answer 14
(September 14, 2016) (“hereinafter “Ans.”) (citing Ueda, col. 8,11. 61-66,
Abstract). We understand the portion of Ueda’s abstract referenced by the
Examiner to discuss the deformation of the projected part of the die mold
4
Appeal 2017-001796
Application 13/144,282
packing part that is not covered by ring-like seal members. Further, we
understand from Ueda that this deformation of the projected part occurs after
an external axial compressive force is applied to the packing to effect the
seal. Ueda, Abstract; see also id. at col. 14,11. 43-56 (describing when the
gland packing is charged into a stuffing box). Appellants’ independent
claims call for the pre-loading to be present “prior to an application of an
axial load external from the annular seal.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 22 (Claims
Appendix).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 14, 19, and 30, and their dependent claims 2-5, 13, 15-18, 20, 29,
and 31-37, as unpatentable over McGee and Ueda.
Second Ground of Rejection: Obviousness over McGee, Ueda, and Tohill
In the rejection of dependent claim 8, the Examiner does not rely on
Tohill to cure the above-discussed deficiencies in the disclosure of Ueda.
Final Act. 12. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise do
not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over McGee, Ueda, and
Tohill.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 13-20, and 29-
37 is reversed.
REVERSED
5