Ex Parte Puggioni et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 19, 201310572170 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARCELLO PUGGIONI, MARCO PELELLA, NICOLA BANCHI, ALESSIO MILANI, and MARCO BONCINELLI ____________ Appeal 2012-002911 Application 10/572,170 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-13. The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 4. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-002911 Application 10/572,170 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites: 1. A heat exchanger device for a gas seal for a centrifugal compressor, the device comprising: a fluid heat exchanger positioned between the gas seal of the compressor and a housing wall of said seal; and at least one inlet duct entering through the fluid heat exchanger and configured to supply a blockage gas to the gas seal, wherein the fluid heat exchanger is configured to keep the temperature of said seal low in the case of high temperatures of the wall and/or compressed gas. REFERENCES Drumm US 4,872,689 Oct. 10, 1989 Lorenzen US 5,718,560 Feb. 17, 1998 REJECTIONS Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lorenzen.1 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm.2 ANALYSIS 1 Appellants mistakenly refer to claims 1-11 and 13 as having been rejected as anticipated. App. Br. 9. However, the Final Rejection, mailed December 30, 2010, was to claims 1-13 as anticipated by Lorenzen. Fin. Rej. 3. 2 Appellants mistakenly refer to claims 1-11 and 13 as having been rejected as obvious. App. Br. 13. In addition, the Examiner mistakenly refers to claims 1-13 as having been rejected as obvious. Ans. 4. However, the Final Rejection was to claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm. Fin. Rej. 4. Appeal 2011-002911 Application 10/572,170 3 The rejection of claims 1-13 as anticipated by Lorenzen, and the rejection of claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm The Examiner finds that Lorenzen discloses “a fluid heat exchanger 12 positioned between the gas seal [15/16] and the housing wall 11.” Fin. Rej. 3. Appellants argue that turbocompressor 12 is not located between seal 15/16 (24/25 in Figure 3) and wall 11. App. Br. 10-11. It is clear in Figure 3 of Lorenzen that the turbocompressor 12 is off to the left of the housing wall 11 and gas seal 24, 253 rather than between them. In his Answer, the Examiner changes his position finding that “the heating device 18” heats fluid which “passes through channels 37 and 32 which lies [sic] between the housing 11 and dry gas seal 21a/21b/21c.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Appellants maintain that the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the heat exchanger is positioned between the gas seal and housing wall. Reply Br. 2. Again, from Figure 3, it is clear that heating device 18 is not located between housing 11 and gas seal 21. In addition, the Examiner does not explain how housing 21 constitutes a gas seal. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lorenzen is not sustained. With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 1-12, the Examiner does not find that the disclosure of Drumm contributes to the disclosure of Lorenzen with respect to the positioning of the heat exchanger. See Fin. Rej. 5; Ans. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-12 as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm is not sustained. 3 Gas seal 16 is renumbered as 24/25 in Figure 3. See, e.g., Lorenzen, col. 3, ll. 35-42. Appeal 2011-002911 Application 10/572,170 4 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lorenzen. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lorenzen and Drumm. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation