Santo F. Scimeca et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

14027449 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
14/027,449 09/16/2013 Santo F. Scimeca P7107US01 8106
147492 7590 12/26/2019
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
patentmail@whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SANTO SCIMECA and CHAD GARNER
____________________

Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, rejecting claims
1, 2, and 8–10.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is directed to an inter-stage seal housing having a
replaceable wear strip. Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis:
1. A seal assembly for a turbine engine, comprising:
a seal housing having a circumferential groove located
along an edge of said seal housing;
at least one segment strip, each having an upstream
sealing surface, a downstream sealing surface, a right
circumferential sealing surface and a left circumferential sealing
surface,
wherein said circumferential groove is configured to
accept the geometry of the at least one segment strip,
wherein said seal housing further comprises:
a downstream surface;
wherein said downstream sealing surface of the at least
one segment strip forms a substantially planar surface with said
downstream surface of said seal housing and serves as a
replaceable contact surface strip for said seal housing, and

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action
dated January 27, 2017 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated November 3, 2017
(“Ans.”), and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated September 25, 2017
(“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief dated January 3, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Mitsubishi
Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 3–7 and 11 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 6–7 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449

3

wherein said downstream sealing surface of the at least
one segment strip and said downstream surface of said seal
housing lie on a single plane.

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Addis ’923
Addis ’354
US 7,000,923 B2
US 8,727,354 B2
Feb. 21, 2006
May 20, 2014
Szymbor
Daggett
US 2003/0178778 A1
US 2008/0296846 A1
Sept. 25, 2003
Dec. 4, 2008

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Szymbor.
2. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Szymbor4 and Daggett.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

4 The summary statement references “Addis et al.,” not Szymbor, but
states that “Addis discloses the invention as claimed above” in Rejection 1,
which is based on Szymbor. Final Act. 5. Appellant states that claim 10 is
rejected as obvious over Szymbor and Daggett. Appeal Br. 3. Thus, we
understand that the Examiner’s summary statement erroneously references
Addis et al. instead of Szymbor. Because we reverse Rejection 1 based on
Szymbor and neither Addis nor Daggett remedy the deficiencies in Szymbor,
the issue as to whether the rejection of claim 10 is based upon Addis/Daggett
or Szymbor/Daggett is moot.
Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449

4

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9
as Anticipated By Szymbor
The Examiner finds that Szymbor discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Figure 4 of Szymbor, as annotated by the Examiner, is
reproduced below:

The Examiner states that annotated Figure 4 illustrates the limitations in
claim 1. Ans. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner finds that the recited “sealing
housing” is taught by Szymbor’s back plate 401 and the recited “segment
strip” is taught by Szymbor’s side plate 403. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449

5

also finds that the limitation reciting that the sealing housing has a “groove”
is taught by Szymbor’s “groove having 403.” Id.; Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts that Szymbor does not disclose all of the limitations
of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant asserts
that Szymbor’s back plate 401 (i.e., the recited sealing housing) does not
have a “groove [which] is configured to accept the geometry of the at least
one segment strip” (i.e., side plate 403) as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree.
Szymbor discloses that the “plates 401, 403 include grooves 411, 413
that combine to form a cavity 419 for receiving a joint 409 of the bristle
arrangement 405,” but does not disclose that back plate 401 has a groove for
receiving side plate 403 (i.e., the recited segment strip). Szymbor ¶ 51.
Instead, Szymbor states that:
Rather than using a separate retainer, the brush seal 400
uses features on the plates 401, 403 to retain the plates 401, 403
together. Specifically, the back plate 401 includes an upper
extension 437 with an angled surface 439 facing the side plate
403. Likewise, the side plate 403 has an angled surface 441
facing the back plate 401.
Szymbor ¶ 52. Referring to annotated Figure 4 above, we find that, while
Szymbor’s back plate 401 and side plate 403 have angled surfaces 439, 441,
respectively, which abut against each other, back plate 401 (i.e., seal
housing) does not have a groove that accepts the side plate 403 (i.e., segment
strip) as recited in claim 1.
We find that Szymbor does not disclose all of the limitations in claim
1 and, thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on Szymbor is
reversed. Similarly, the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 9, which depend from
claim 1, is reversed.
Appeal 2018-002398
Application 14/027,449

6

Rejection 2: Claim 10
as Unpatentable Over Szymbor and Daggett
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, which depends from claim 1,
does not remedy the deficiencies of Szymbor as discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 10 is reversed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis
(35 U.S.C.)
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 9 § 102 Szymbor 1, 2, 8, 9
10 § 103 Szymbor, Daggett 10
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 8–10

For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and
8–10 is REVERSED.

REVERSED