Ex Parte Schroeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11294668 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
11/294,668 12/05/2005 Gary W. Schroeder 2802-256-016 6572
7590 05/01/2013
John A. Molnar, Jr.
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION
6035 Parkland Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44124-4141
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2013 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 GARY W. SCHROEDER and JOHNATHAN W. CARTER
____________

Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary W. Schroeder and Johnathan W. Carter (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 17-
19, 21 and 25-29. Claims 1-13 are canceled, and claims 14-16, 20, 22-24
and 30-32 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an assembly having two relatively
rotatable components and a seal ring disposed therebetween. Independent
claim 17 is illustrative:
17. An assembly having a source of fluid on a
high pressure side thereof comprising:

a female part having a generally annular female
part surface which extends along a central
longitudinal assembly axis;

a male part having a generally cylindrical male
part surface disposed in concentric opposition to
the female surface, one of the parts rotating
relative to the other one of the parts about the
assembly axis, and the female part surfaces having
a gland defined therein in confrontation with the
male part surface, the gland having a first end wall
and a second end wall spaced-apart axially from
the first end wall, and a peripheral wall extending
axially between the first and second end walls and
radially circumferentially about the assembly axis;
and

a seal ring received within the gland intermediate
the male and female parts, the seal ring comprising
Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

3
a generally annular body extending around a
central seal axis disposed coaxially with the
assembly axis, the body having a radial first end
face disposed opposite the gland first end wall, and
a radial second end face spaced-apart axially from
the first end face along a central longitudinal body
axis taken through an axial cross-section of the
body, and being disposed opposite the gland
second end wall, and the body having an inner
diameter face extending axially intermediate the
first and second end face and disposed opposite the
male part surface, and an outer diameter face
spaced-apart radially from the inner diameter face
and extending intermediate the first and second
end face, and being disposed opposite the gland
peripheral wall, the inner diameter face having a
circumferential inner sealing portion, and the outer
diameter face having a circumferential outer
sealing portion,

wherein the outer sealing portion is disposed
opposite the gland peripheral wall, and the inner
sealing portion is disposed opposite the male part
surface,

wherein the inner sealing portion is formed as
having series of grooves, each of the grooves
extending circumferentially about the central seal
axis and being spaced-apart axially from each
adjacent one of the grooves, fluid from the high
pressure side of the assembly being retained within
the grooves as the one of the parts rotates relative
to the other one of the parts, and

wherein the outer sealing portion is compressible
radially against the gland peripheral wall to
sealingly contact the same, and the inner sealing
portion is compressible radially against the male
part surface to sealingly contact the same.
Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

4
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected1:
(i) claims 17-19, 25 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lansky (US 2,997,318, issued Aug. 22, 1961);
(ii) claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lansky in view of Downes (US 6,029,980, issued Feb. 29, 2000);
(iii) claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lansky in view of Johnen (US 6,921,080 B2, issued Jul. 26, 2005);
(iv) claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lansky in view of Weinand (US 3,661,400, issued May 9, 1972); and
(iii) claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lansky in view of McHale (US 7,004,475 B2, issued Feb. 28, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Claims 17-19, 25 and 28--Anticipation--Lansky
Appellants argue these claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7-8. We will
take independent claim 17 as representative.
The Examiner found that Lansky discloses all elements of claim 17.
Appellants argue that the portion of Lansky relied upon by the Examiner as
disclosing relatively rotatable male and female members is “simply stating
the field of his invention,” and is a statement that “stands for the broad
proposition that Lansky discloses an assembly having a male part which is

1 The Examiner objected to the use of the term “thereagainst” in claim 19.
Final Office Action dated Jan. 4, 2010. Appellants seek to have us address
the propriety of this objection. Appeal Br. 6. Redress for an objection of
this type must be sought by petition. This Board reviews petitionable
matters only in limited circumstances that are not present here.
Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

5
either in an axial direction or as [sic, is] rotated along an axis of a shaft
seals.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants maintain that the Lansky “invention itself
is a seal for the reciprocating piston rod of a hydraulic cylinder,” and that “it
would seem that the Lansky assembly is in fact reciprocating rather than
rotating.” Id.
Further, regardless as to whether the specific invention sought to be
patented by Lansky is a seal used in conjunction with a piston reciprocating
within a cylinder2, and that the embodiment specifically illustrated is of a
reciprocating arrangement, Lansky explicitly states that the rings disclosed
therein are used to form fluid seals between relatively rotatable cylindrical
members. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982)(reference
is prior art not only for specifically disclosed embodiments, but also all that
it fairly teaches). Appellants themselves acknowledge that this is disclosed
by Lansky as a “broad proposition”. Appeal Br. 8. While Appellants
maintain that Lansky “makes no mention that this particular seal may be
used between rotating members,” (id.), Lansky discloses no other ring or
seal configurations, and thus Lansky is seen as fairly disclosing the use of
the rings disclosed therein with relatively rotatable cylindrical members.
We are thus not apprised of error in the Examiner’s position. The
rejection of claim 17 and of claims 18, 19, 25 and 28 standing or falling
therewith, is sustained.

2 Which premise appears to be flawed, in any event, given that claim 2 of the
Lansky patent, as noted by the Examiner, is directed to a seal without being
limited to use with reciprocating members. Lansky, col. 5, l. 8-col. 6, l. 16;
Ans. 9. That being said, we do not rely on the scope of claim 2 in Lansky in
deciding the issue.
Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

6
Claims 21 and 29--Obviousness--Lansky/Downes
Appellants rely on the same arguments as were made with respect to
claim 17 above for the patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 8. For the
reasons noted above, we find the arguments unpersuasive, and the rejection
of claims 21 and 29 is sustained.
Claim 26--Obviousness--Lansky/Johnen
Appellants rely on the same arguments as were made with respect to
claim 17 above for the patentability of this claim. Appeal Br. 8. For the
reasons noted above, we find the arguments unpersuasive, and this rejection
of claim 26 is sustained.
Claim 27--Obviousness--Lansky/Weinand
Appellants rely on the same arguments as were made with respect to
claim 17 above for the patentability of this claim. Appeal Br. 8. For the
reasons noted above, we find the arguments unpersuasive, and this rejection
of claim 27 is sustained.
Claims 26 and 27--Obviousness--Lansky/McHale
Appellants rely on the same arguments as were made with respect to
claim 17 above for the patentability of claim 26. Appeal Br. 9. For the
reasons noted above, we find the arguments unpersuasive, and the rejection
of claim 26 is sustained.
Appellants argue, with respect to claim 27, that McHale, relied on by
the Examiner as disclosing dams that are axially staggered, are instead
disposed in a straight line. Appeal Br. 9. Given that we have above
sustained the rejection of claim 27 as being unpatentable over Lansky and
Weinand, we do not reach the merits of this rejection of claim 27.

Appeal 2011-001670
Application 11/294,668

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-19, 21 and 25-29 is
affirmed.
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

Klh