United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2021001145 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021)

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.
15/893,833 02/12/2018 Armando Amador 101130US01;67097-3735PUS1 4156
54549 7590 10/04/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FISHER, WESLEY LE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ARMANDO AMADOR,
DAVID BARGER, and SEAN P. MCGEE
__________

Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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, 2, 6, 11–13, 15, and 17–21. Claims
3–5, 7–10, 14, and 16 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.);
see also Ans. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 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 Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed Aug. 21,
2020.
2 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Dec. 1, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
2
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to aircraft engine seals,
and more particularly to an anti-rotation feature for preventing rotation of an
aircraft engine seal components [sic] in the case of a seal failure.”
Spec. ¶ 1.3 Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A seal configuration for an aircraft engine comprising:
a ring shaped sealing component defining an axis;
a carrier disposed radially outward of the ring shaped
sealing component and supporting the ring shaped sealing
component;
a housing disposed at least partially about the carrier, and
maintained in a static position relative to the carrier via a bellows
spring;
at least one of the carrier and the housing including a
plurality of rotation inhibiting features disposed in a balanced
configuration about the at least one of the carrier and the housing;
each of the rotation inhibiting features including a finger
extending from said housing and at least one interface feature
corresponding to each finger, and being disposed on the carrier,
wherein the at least one interface feature comprises one of a
notch protruding radially into the carrier and at least one tab
protruding radially outward from the carrier, the at least one tab
defining a circumferentially enclosed through opening; and
the finger being received in the through opening.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).

3 Specification (“Spec.”), filed Feb. 12, 2018.
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
3
THE REJECTIONS4
I. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Walsh (US 5,622,438, issued Apr. 22, 1997).
II. Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Davis (US 2014/0054862 A1, published Feb. 27,
2014) and De La Bruere Terreault (US 2017/0268360 A1, published Sept.
21, 2017).
III. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Davis, De La Bruere Terreault, and Klan (US 2015/0098798 A1, published
Apr. 9, 2015).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Anticipation by Walsh
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 19
and 20 separate from those presented for independent claim 18. Appeal Br.
4–5. We select claim 18 as the representative claim, and claims 19 and 20
stand or fall with claim 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 18 is directed to “[a] method for preventing rotation of a seal
element” in which the method comprises the steps of “allowing at least a
portion of the seal element to rotate until a finger extending from a housing
is interfaced with a tab extending from a seal carrier” and “preventing
continued rotation of the seal element via the interface between the finger

4 The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite, is
moot as claim 16 has been canceled. See Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
dated June 26, 2020) 3; Ans. 3; Adv. Action, dated Aug. 5, 2020; Response
After Final, filed July 16, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
4
and the tab, wherein the interface is a circumferentially enclosed through
hole defined by the tab.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added).
As to claim 18, the Examiner finds that Walsh’s Figure 2 discloses an
interface between a finger (pin 140) and a tab (seal carrier 136), in which the
interface is a circumferentially enclosed through hole, because Walsh
discloses that the “other end of each pin extends through holes in the carbon
seal carrier and retaining ring.” Final Act. 4 (quoting Walsh 5:42–44). The
Examiner takes the position that “[t]he term ‘holes’ used by Walsh implies
that the through holes would be circumferentially enclosed.” Id.
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Walsh discloses an
interface between a finger and a tab, in which the interface is a
circumferentially enclosed through hole. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues
that “the term holes does not necessitate circumferential enclosure,” “the
[E]xaminer has not established inherency,” and “the [E]xaminer has
acknowledged that the feature is not expressly disclosed by Walsh.” Id.
Appellant first points out that a definition of the term “hole” is “an opening
through something” and “an area where something is missing.” Id.5
Appellant further points out that “[n]either of these definitions requires that
the opening or area be circumferentially enclosed.” Id. Appellant further
argues that “[t]he [E]xaminer’s repeated statements that the term hole
‘implies’ a circumferentially enclosed opening is an express admission that
the term does not necessitate a circumferentially enclosed opening.” Id.; see
also Reply Br. 1–2.6

5 Citing “https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hole Retrieved on
August 11, 2020.” Appeal Br. 5, fn. 3.
6 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Dec. 7, 2020.
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
5
As an initial matter, we note that although the term
“circumferentially” is recited in claim 18 with respect to a “through hole,”7
this term is not recited in the Specification in relation to a through hole of a
tab (although “circumference” is employed in other situations). See Spec.,
passim. Because the Specification does not define the term
“circumferentially” in this respect, we look to its plain an ordinary meaning.
The term “circumferential” is defined as “of, at, or near the circumference;
surrounding; lying along the outskirts”8 and the term “circumference” is
defined as “the external boundary or surface of a figure or object.”9
Regarding “circumference,” this definition is consistent with how that term
is used elsewhere in Appellant’s Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 42.
Accordingly, we construe the term “a circumferentially enclosed through
hole” as a hole that has a defined boundary. In this regard, we agree with
the Examiner’s assessment that Walsh’s hole that accepts pin 140 is “a
circumferentially enclosed through hole” because it has a defined boundary.
Appellant does not explain why Walsh’s hole that accepts pin 140 does not

7 We note that claim 18 recites “through hole” and claims 1 and 13 recite
“through opening.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.). The Specification
recites “opening” in some instances and “hole” in other instances. See, e.g.,
Spec. ¶¶ 9, 47.
8 See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/circumferential (last accessed
Aug. 6, 2021) (emphasis added).
9 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumference (last
accessed Aug. 7, 2021) (emphasis added). We note that Merriam-Webster
Dictionary also indicates that the term “circumference” can mean “the outer
edge of a shape or area” or “a boundary line enclosing an area” in the
perspective of a “fence [that] marks the circumference of the yard.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
6
have a defined boundary. As such, Appellant’s contentions do not apprise
us of Examiner error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as anticipated by Walsh. We further
sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20, which fall with claim 18.

Rejection II – Obviousness over Davis and De La Bruere Terreault
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2, 6,
11, 15, 17, and 21 and independent claim 13 separate from those presented
for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 5–6. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim, and claims 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 21 stand or fall
with claim 1.
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Davis discloses a seal
configuration for an aircraft engine having at least one tab defining a
circumferentially enclosed through opening. Final Act. 6.10 The Examiner
provides an annotated version of Figure 3 of Davis to show components that
the Examiner finds as corresponding to the recited tab of claim 1, as
reproduced below:

10 The Examiner relies on the teachings of De La Bruere Terreault for
limitations other than those discussed above. Final Act. 7.

Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
7

See Final Act. 6, 11. Figure 3 is “an enlarged perspective view of the seal
assembly” of Figure 2 of Davis. Davis ¶ 10, Fig. 3. Annotated Figure 3 of
Davis shows a solid line enclosing certain components and an arrow to the
solid line with a label of “tab.” The Examiner explains that “the ‘tab’
labeled in the [annotated] figure [3 of Davis] . . . is shown to encompass
both a portion of the spring carrier 36 and bracket 52.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Davis’s “bracket 52 is not a component of the
tab, and there is no reasonable interpretation of Appellant’s claims
(particularly one that considers [Appellant’s Specification]) in which a slot
in a tab that receives a bracket can be considered a circumferentially
enclosed through opening defined by the tab.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 3–4. Appellant argues that “the [E]xaminer’s annotation is an arbitrary
outline surrounding portions of multiple distinct components, including at
least three distinct tabs.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues that because
“the [E]xaminer’s annotation appears to be attempting to manufacture an
interpretation of the reference based on Appellant’s claims in order to
support a rejection regardless of whether such an interpretation is reasonable
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
8
or not,” the Examiner’s “manner of formulating rejections is improper
hindsight.” Id. at 4.
These argument are unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, the
Examiner relies on bracket 52 of Davis as providing the circumferentially
enclosed through opening, rather than other components that receive bracket
52 (i.e., the Examiner does not find the slot that receives bracket 52 as the
corresponding circumferentially enclosed through opening). Second, the
Specification does not define the term “tab.” See Spec., passim. The
Specification describes that the “tab protrud[es] radially outward from the
carrier.” Spec. ¶ 17; see also id. at Figs. 2–3. The term “tab” is defined as
“a short projecting device.”11 In this case, we fail to see why bracket 52 as
depicted in Davis’s Figure 3 cannot be characterized as a short projecting
device from spring carrier 36. Further, to the extent Appellant is arguing
that the corresponding tab (i.e., bracket 52 along with spring carrier 36) of
Davis is not a monolithic component, such a feature is not recited for the tab
of claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based
on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
As to Appellant’s contention regarding improper hindsight
reconstruction, we do not agree. The Examiner finds that although Davis
discloses a spring 38, Davis fails to disclose a bellows spring and the
Examiner relies on De La Bruere Terreault for disclosing this claimed
subject matter. Final Act. 6–7. More particularly, the Examiner finds that
De La Bruere Terreault discloses a bellow spring (bias member unit 56) used

11 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tab (last accessed Aug.
7, 2021).
Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
9
in a seal configuration for an aircraft engine. Id. (citing De La Bruere
Terreault ¶¶ 9, 18; Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the spring component of
Davis, “as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results,” “with the bellow spring disclosed by De La Bruere
Terreault for the purpose of providing a known biasing force towards the
carrier and forming a sealing interface as taught by De La Bruere Terreault.”
Id. (citing De La Bruere Terreault ¶¶ 18, 23).
Here, we do not agree that the Examiner erred in the findings
discussed above with respect to Davis and Appellant does not explain why
the Examiner erred in the findings with respect to De La Bruere Terreault.
Further, Appellant’s naked assertion of hindsight does not inform us of
Examiner error, in that Appellant does not explain why the Examiner’s
proposed modification (based on the teachings of De La Bruere Terreault) is
a product of hindsight. In other words, Appellant’s argument lacks
specificity. Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant will
be addressed. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075–76 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Moreover, we find that the Examiner’s rejection is based on
sound technical reasoning (simple substitution of Davis’s spring 38 with a
bellows spring of De La Bruere Terreault for providing biasing force and a
sealing interface) and evidence disclosed in the cited prior art, rather than
improper hindsight reconstruction.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Davis and De La
Bruere Terreault. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 11, 13, 15,
17, and 21, which fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2021-001145
Application 15/893,833
10
Rejection III – Obviousness over Davis, De La Bruere Terreault, and Klan
Appellant does not provide any arguments as to the rejection of
dependent claim 12. Appeal Br. 4–6. Accordingly, as we find no
deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of parent claim 1, we likewise
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, for reasons similar to those
discussed above for claim 1, as unpatentable over Davis, De La Bruere
Terreault, and Klan.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18–20 102(a)(1) Walsh 18–20
1, 2, 6, 11,
13, 15, 17, 21
103 Davis, De La
Bruere Terreault
1, 2, 6, 11,
13, 15, 17,
21

12 103 Davis, De La
Bruere Terreault,
Klan
12
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6, 11–
13, 15, 17–
21

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