Ex Parte BUSEKROS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

14317643 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/317,643 06/27/2014
135838 7590 11/19/2018
Studio Torta (RINGFENCE)
c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
Armin BUSEKROS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0087748-000189 5389
EXAMINER
WHITE, DWAYNE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMIN BUSEKROS, ROBERT PRZYBYL, and
GREGORY JEUNET-MANCY
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Annin Busekros et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action ( dated Feb.
9, 2017, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-13. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Ansaldo Energia IP UK Limited is the applicant and is identified as the real
party of interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief 2 (filed Aug. 7, 2017,
hereinafter "Appeal Br.").
2 Claim 4 is canceled. See Appellants' Amendment 6 (filed Dec. 5, 2016).
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a pressure casing for a turbomachine
having "two casing shells which are removably connected in a pressure-tight
manner in a parting plane by means of a flange." Spec. 1, 11. 13-18.
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A pressure casing of a turbomachine, comprising:
at least two casing shells which are connected in a
pressure-tight manner in a parting plane by a flange, the casing
shells being pressed together with sealing effect in the parting
plane in the region of the flange by at least one threaded bolt
which extends through a through hole in the flange
perpendicularly to the parting plane, and wherein the at least one
threaded bolt is charged by a heat transfer medium, in that at least
one of feed holes or outlet holes for the heat transfer medium are
passed through the flange; and
an annular space provided between the inner lateral
surface of the through hole and a shaft of the threaded bolt, the
annular space being sealed in a gas tight manner on its both
longitudinal ends and this annular space is charged by the heat
transfer medium.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiko (JP 59-079011 A, pub.
May 8, 1984) and Seaton (US 7,641,240 B2, pub. Jan. 5, 2010).
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Czachor et al. (US 6,352,404 Bl,
iss. Mar. 5, 2002, hereinafter "Czachor") and Seaton.
2
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants have not presented arguments for the patentability of
claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-11 apart from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6-7.
Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv), we select claim 1
as the representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 2, 3, 5-7, and
9-11 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Kunihiko discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, including, inter alia, an annular space, located between an inner
surface of through hole 5a and a shaft of threaded bolt 4, that is charged by a
fluid (steam) heat transfer medium. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Abstract).
The Examiner further relies on Seaton to disclose that the annular space is
sealed in a gas tight manner at both longitudinal ends. In the Advisory
Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief ( dated May 4, 2017, hereinafter
"Advisory Act."), the Examiner explains that Seaton "explicitly teaches the
principle [ of] sealing the annular space between flanges around and this
structure wants to retain the gas in the annular pipe." Advisory Act. 2.
Appellants argue that Seaton uses bolts 13, 14 to seal a joint between
flanges 11, 12, but does not disclose sealing both longitudinal ends of an
annular space located between an inner surface of a through hole and the
shaft of a threaded bolt in a gas tight manner. Appeal Br. 7. According to
Appellants, "[ t ]he longitudinal ends of the annular space [ in Seaton] are not
sealed." Id.
In response, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Kunihiko 's
Figure 5, reproduced below:
3
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
!ongitudtnal
Annotated Figure 5 of Kunihiko shows a cross sectional view of a
cooling part having horizontal flanges denoted by the Examiner as 3a and
3b, and showing an annular space having longitudinal ends. See Examiner's
Answer 4 (dated Nov. 30, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.").
The Examiner takes the position that the structure in Kunihiko
"interposed between opposite ends ofbolt (4) and flanges (3a/3b) are
suggestive of seals such as a washer or gasket." Ans. 2-3; see also
Examiner's encircled structure in annotated Figure 5 of Kunihiko. The
Examiner explains that because the intent of Kunihiko "is to heat or cool all
of the bolts along the entire length of the passage ... there is no reason to
conclude that ... the longitudinal ends of the bolts are not sealed." Ans. 4.
The Examiner further notes, however, that instead of relying on
Kunihiko alone, Seaton is cited for the general teaching that "it is known to
4
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
be desirable to seal the joint to preclude the escape of steam." Id. at 9. As
such, according to the Examiner, "one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that this principle applies to any joints of a passage carrying steam
or any other fluid" and, moreover, "would fairly suggest that when flanges
are tighten[ ed] by bolts, all joints formed between the flanges as well as
between the flanges and bolts should be sealed ... [to] resist leakage (where
such joints form a part of a passage)." Id. The Examiner concludes that
"Seaton has been included to provide evidence that it is well known that it is
desirable to seal the joints of a passage carrying a fluid." Id. at 11.
Appellants reply that the Examiner appears to improperly rely on a
theory of inherency, but provides "no reason why the feature of the annular
space being sealed in a gas tight manner on both its longitudinal ends is
necessarily present in ... Kunihiko." Reply Brief 3 (filed Jan. 30, 2018,
hereinafter "Reply Br."). Appellants assert that the drawings of Kunihiko do
not support the Examiner's position, and Kunihiko does not disclose that the
annular space is sealed in a gas tight manner on both its longitudinal ends.
Id. at 4. According to Appellants, Kunihiko's lack of disclosure of
"intentional leakage ... does not support a prima facie case of obviousness."
Id. Appellants conclude that because Kunihiko does not disclose sealed
ends and because Seaton only discloses a sealed flange, "independent claim
1 is distinguishable over the cited references." Id. at 5.
The lack of an express disclosure of a particular claim element does
not defeat a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and such a requirement
would essentially defeat the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We must
attribute skill to the hypothetical person described in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, given that Figure 5 of
5
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
Kunihiko shows an element having a different shading than that of the bolt
head and the flanges 3a, 3b, and moreover, is located between the head of
bolt 4 and the flange (longitudinal end), we agree with the Examiner that a
skilled artisan would have readily understood that Kunihiko suggests a seal
at the longitudinal ends. See Ans. 3--4. We, thus, agree with the Examiner's
finding that the structures in Kunihiko "interposed between opposite ends of
bolt (4) and flanges (3a/3b) are suggestive of seals." Id. at 2.
Furthermore, an artisan must be presumed to know something about
the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516 (CCPA 1962). In this case, given that the flow of fluid through
cooling holes 8a and 8b of Kunihiko's Figure 5 is shown as directed towards
the longitudinal ends and then towards the parting plane of flanges 3a, 3b
suggests to the skilled artisan that the fluid does not escape therefrom, but
rather, flows from a first bolt annular space to a second bolt annular space
through passages 9a, 9b in the flange (see Kunihiko, Fig. 5). We further
note that the Examiner does not rely solely on Kunihiko to disclose sealing
the longitudinal ends of the annular space, but also relies on Seaton for the
general teaching that a fluid passage should be sealed. See Ans. 9; see also
Advisory Act. 2. As such, in light of Kunihiko's fluid flow path and
Seaton's disclosure of sealing a fluid passage, the Examiner is on solid
footing to assert that in Kunihiko "all joints formed between the flanges as
well as between the flanges and bolts should be sealed ... [to] resist
leakage." Ans. 9. We, thus, agree with the Examiner that "the person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood it would be more desirable to
have the annular space be sealed in a gas tight manner on the longitudinal
ends rather than leak." Id. at 10.
6
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
Lastly, we note that when an improvement is technology-independent
and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more
desirable, an implicit motivation to combine exists even absent any hint of
suggestion in the references themselves. "In such situations, the proper
question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills
rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would readily appreciate that the benefits gained by providing a fluid
passage seal, as taught by Seaton, would also be achieved in the annular
space of Kunihiko's bolts 4, especially in light of Kunihiko's fluid flow path
and Seaton's disclosure that a seal provides the benefit of preventing steam
leakage. Appellants do not provide evidence to persuasively show that the
modification of Kunihiko to provide a seal at the longitudinal ends of the
annular space would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Kunihiko and Seaton. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-
11 fall with claim 1.
Rejection II
We agree with the Examiner that Czachor discloses pressure casing 10
including, inter alia, casing shells 12, 14 connected in a pressure-tight
manner using flanges 24, 28 and threaded bolt 30 that is charged by a heat
transfer fluid medium flowing in the annular space located between the shaft
of bolt 30 and the lateral surface of the hole. Final Act. 10-11 (citing
7
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
Czachor, col. 2, 1. 65---col. 3, 1. 7, col. 3, 11. 22-29, Fig. 3). The Examiner is
also correct that as the heat transfer fluid medium flows through axial
passage 50 of channel 48 formed in at least one of mating surfaces 42, 46 of
flanges 28, 24 it also flows through the annular spaces located between the
shaft of various bolts and the lateral surface of respective holes. Id. at 11
(citing Czachor, col. 3, 11. 22-29, Fig. 2). As such, a skilled artisan would
readily appreciate that given that the flow of heat transfer fluid medium
occurs along passage 50, via radial channels 52, 54, the fluid does not escape
(leaks) from the annular spaces located between the shaft of bolts 30 and the
lateral surface of respective holes. See Ans. 7.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Seaton for
the general teaching that a fluid passage should be sealed. See Final Act.
11-12, Ans. 9; see also Advisory Act. 2. As such, in light of Czachor's fluid
flow path and Seaton's disclosure of sealing a fluid passage, the Examiner is
on solid footing to assert that in Czachor "all joints formed between the
flanges as well as between the flanges and bolts should be sealed ... [to]
resist leakage." Ans. 9. We, thus, agree with the Examiner that "the person
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood it would be more desirable
to have the annular space be sealed in a gas tight manner on the longitudinal
ends rather than leak." Id. at 10.
Appellants submit the same contentions of error discussed supra. See
Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-5. However, we are not persuaded for the
same reasons discussed above in Rejection I and with respect to the
Examiner's combination of Czachor and Seaton. Accordingly, for the
foregoing reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Czachor and Seaton.
8
Appeal2018-003091
Application 14/317,643
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9