Parker-Hannifin Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

15566928 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2020)

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.
15/566,928 10/16/2017 Jason Richard Koller PA24P0166WOAUS 9479
49458 7590 06/26/2020
DON W. BULSON (PARK)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE / 19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
HICKS, ANGELISA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON RICHARD KOLLER
____________

Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7−10, 12, 14−19, 25, 26, 29,
and 31−33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Parker-Hannifin
Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to fluid seals and a seal
retainer with an axially facing concave surface for receiving a convex face
of a sealing member (Spec., pages 1, 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. An assembly for a hydraulic component, the assembly
comprising: a seal retainer comprising:
a radially inward facing surface extending about a longitudinal
axis and extending along the longitudinal axis;
an axially facing surface extending radially outward from the
radially inward facing surface, the axially facing surface facing in a
first direction along the longitudinal axis; and
an axially facing concave portion formed in the axially facing
surface, the axially facing concave portion facing in the first direction
and configured to receive a convex face of a sealing member, wherein
the axially facing concave portion extends along a curved axis (B), the
curved axis (B) being coaxial with the longitudinal axis and
circumscribing the longitudinal axis;
the assembly further comprising:
the sealing member, wherein the convex face is seated in the
axially facing concave portion, and wherein the convex face forms an
axial end of the sealing member;
wherein when the sealing member is pressurized,
the sealing member is engaged with the axially facing surface of
the seal retainer to prevent the sealing member from moving in a
second direction opposite to the first direction;
radially outer and radially inner portions of the sealing member
expand radially, relative to the longitudinal axis; and
the axially facing surface of the seal retainer partially limits the
expansion to reduce stress of the sealing member and the axially
facing surface of the seal retainer reinforces a curvature of the sealing
member, thereby preventing flattening of the sealing member to
improve sealing effectiveness of the sealing member;
wherein the convex face faces opposite the axially facing
concave portion to allow the convex face and the axially facing
concave portion to engage one another; and
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

3

wherein the convex face circumscribes the curved axis B with a radius
less than a corresponding radius of the axially facing concave portion
to allow the convex face to expand radially outward from the circular
axis after abutting a portion of the axially facing surface that defines
the axially facing concave portion.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16−18, 25, 26, 29, and 31−33 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith (US 6,511,043
B2; issued Jan. 28, 2003) (“Smith”) and Mattina (US 2002/0074739 A1;
published June 20, 2002).
2. Claims 3, 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Smith, Mattina, and Smith (US 7,021,677 B2; issued Apr.
4, 2006) (“Smith ‘677”).
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Smith, Mattina, and Brown (GB 118927, issued Feb. 2, 1928).
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Smith, Mattina, and Duchrow US 4,699, 293; issued Oct. 13, 1987).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

4

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Smith and Mattina is improper because: one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be led to expect an alignment benefit by
the combination; that Mattina would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art
to use a concave lower facing surface in the proposed manner; and that the
rationale for the combination is insufficient to support the obviousness
rejection (App. Br. 12−19, Reply Br. 3−6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Action 2−5; Ans. 3−5). The Examiner has determined that it
would have been obvious to modify the axially facing surface of Smith to
have an axially facing concave portion as taught by Mattina in order to
ensure that the seal is aligned and improve its functionality (Final Act. 3).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings set forth in the Final Rejection
at pages 2−5 and the determination that the cited combination of references
would have been obvious. The Appellant in the Appeal Brief at pages
12−19 has not argued that elements from the combination are missing, only
that the combination is improper for the reasons outlined above. Smith in
Figure 1 shows a seal combination in which there is an axially facing surface
(19) and axially facing member (26). Mattina discloses a upper female end
ring 24 that receives a center ring 22 that is substantially V-shaped and fits
in its recess. Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to
have seen the benefit in modifying the axially facing surface of Smith to
include an axially facing concave portion as disclosed by Mattina to ensure
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

5

that the seal was better aligned and improve its sealing function.
Accordingly, this rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
With regard to claim 26, the Appellant argues that the claim limitation
for a specific “depth D of the axially facing concave portion, along the
longitudinal axis, is between 10% and 25% of a radius of the axially facing
concave portion relative to the curved axis B” is not suggested by the
combination as the modification is for seal fatigue purposes rather than
alignment (App. Br. 21, 22). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that
optimum or working ranges involve only routine skill in the art and that the
specific range has not been shown to be of importance (Final Act. 9, Ans. 4).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the cited claimed ranges could be
determined based on the desired depth of sealing fit between the components
and involve only routine skill in the art. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007), the Court stated that when considering obviousness that
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, this rejection is sustained.
In claim 29, the claim recites that the “radius of the axially facing
concave portion may be between about 3% and about 10% larger than a
radius of the sealing member relative to the curved axis to allow the sealing
member to expand radially outward relative to the curved axis”. The
Appellant makes similar arguments regarding the specific range claimed
here to those made in regard to claim 26 discussed above (App. Br. 23, 24).
We agree with the Examiner’s determination in the Final Action at page 9
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

6

that the optimum or workable ranges here claimed here involve only routine
skill in the art. Accordingly this rejection is sustained.
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 32 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose that the sealing member is “metal”
(App. Br. 24, 25, Reply Br. 5). In contrast, the Examiner has determined
that Smith discloses a metal sealing member at col. 3, lines 6-7 (Final
Act. 10). We agree with the Examiner. Here, the use of a metal seal in the
combination as disclosed by Smith would have been readily understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a more durable seal components if
desired. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
The Appellant argues with regard to claim 7 that claim requires that
the “axially facing concave portion has C-shape cross-section facing the
curved axis” and that the rejection fails to provide a rational for such a
modification (Ans. 25, 26). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that
Smith ‘677 teaches an axially facing concave portion, that Mattina has a C-
shaped cross-section facing the curved axis in Smith (Final Act. 11). The
Examiner further has determined that the shape of the seal whether “U”,
“C”, or and “O” could be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the
art.
We agree with the Examiner. Here, in the cited combination one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the shape of the curved portion
could be readily varied based on the desired sealing level desired in the
combination. Smith does disclose using a “U-shaped” seal as well.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

7

The Appellant has presented similar arguments for the remaining
claims and the rejection of the claims is sustained for the same reasons given
above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as listed in the Rejections
section above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 10, 12,
14, 16−18,
25, 26, 29,
31−33
103 Smith, Mattina 1, 4, 10, 12,
14, 16−18,
25, 26, 29,
31–33

3, 7, 15, 19 103 Smith, Mattina,
Smith
3, 7, 15, 19
8 103 Smith, Mattina,
Brown
8
9 103 Smith, Mattina,
Duchrow
9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 7–
10, 12, 14–
19, 25, 26,
29, 31−33

Appeal 2020-000061
Application 15/566,928

8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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