11482420 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

Ex Parte Pickens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 2013

11482420 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

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. 11/482,420 07/07/2006 John T. Pickens 67097-615;001365 6311 54549 7590 06/25/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2013 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 JOHN T. PICKENS, TUY TRAN, and ALLAN R. PENDA ____________________ Appeal 2011-005009 Application 11/482,420 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005009 Application 11/482,420 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tran (US 2007/0297897 A1, published Dec. 27, 2007). Appellants expressly state that only the rejection of claims 3-5 based on Tran is being appealed “for the purposes of narrowing the issues.” App. Br. 3. Thus, claims 1, 2, 6-8, 20, 21, 23, and 24 are not involved in this appeal.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to an arrangement for loading and retaining knife edge seals within a compressor.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 3, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. 3. The compressor of claim 2, wherein the plurality of lock assemblies each comprise a housing and a set screw movable between a released position and a lock position to prevent circumferential movement of the plurality of knife edge seals about the disk backbones when the lock assembly is in the lock position.2 1 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1215.03 (8th Ed., Rev. 7, Aug. 2012) provides guidance to the Examiner as to how to proceed with respect to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 20, 21, 23, and 24 which have been withdrawn from appeal. 2 Although Appellants have not appealed claims 1 and 2, we also reproduce these claims below to aid in understanding the subject matter of claim 3 which depends from claim 2 which, in turn, depends from claim 1. 1. A compressor comprising: Appeal 2011-005009 Application 11/482,420 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Tran discloses all of the recited limitations of claim 3, and specifically discloses “a plurality of knife edge seals 36a, 36b circumferentially spaced about a circumference of the disk rims, wherein each of the plurality of knife edge seals are supported and retained by a retaining flange from each of two of the plurality of disks.” Ans. 4 (citing Tran, figs. 2-8); see also Ans. 11. Appellants argue that Figure 3 discloses the small seal portion 42a and 42b3, which are entirely separate from each other. Thus, what is illustrated in Figure 3 would not meet the limitation where “each of the plurality of knife edge seals are supported and retained [by] a retaining flange from each of two of said plurality of disks.” Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellants. Tran states that “[e]ach knife edge seal segment 36a and 36b is supported by the corresponding backbones 36a and 36b and retained by the corresponding retaining flange 38a and 38b.” Tran ‘897, para. [0024]. As shown in Figure 3 of Tran, a knife edge seal segment a plurality of disks each defining a disk rim having a disk backbone and a retaining flange protruding from the disk rim, and said disks centered about a central axis; and a plurality of knife edge seals circumferentially spaced about a circumference of the disk rims, wherein each of the plurality of knife edge seals are supported and retained by a retaining flange from each of two of said plurality of disks. 2. The compressor of claim 1, wherein a plurality of lock assemblies are positioned between the plurality of knife edge seals and the disk backbones. 3 The knife edge runners 42a, 42b are an integral part of a respective knife edge seal segment 36a, 36b. See Tran , para. [0025] Appeal 2011-005009 Application 11/482,420 4 36a is on backbone 34a and contacts retaining flange 38a, while another knife edge seal segment 36b is on another backbone 34b and contacts another retaining flange 38b. Similarly, Figure 7 of Tran shows a knife edge seal segment 36a on backbone 34a and contacting retaining flange 38a, while another knife edge seal segment 36b is on another backbone 34b and contacts another retaining flange 38b with another example of lock assembly interlocking features 56 and 58 between the knife edge seal segments 36a, 36b. See Tran, paras. [0030] and [0032]. When assembled, a pair of knife edge seal segments 36a, 36b is assembled with a pair of spacer bridges 44a, 44b. See Tran, para. [0030] and fig. 7. This assembly is then positioned in a slot beneath the flanges 38a, 38b. See Tran, fig. 3. The left knife seal 36a is retained by a single flange 38a of a first disk 26a and a left spacer bridge 44a. Similarly, the right knife seal 36b is retained by a single flange 38b of a second disk 26b and a left spacer bridge 44b. See Tran ‘897, figs. 3 and 7. Thus, the Examiner’s findings that “each of the plurality of knife seals is retained by a retaining flange from each of the two plurality of disks” is in error as not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, because each knife edge seal segment 36a and 36b of Tran is retained by a single flange 38a and 38b, respectively, from a single disk 26a and 26b, respectively. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3, and claims 4 and 5 dependent upon claim 3, as anticipated by Tran. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-005009 Application 11/482,420 5 mls