Ex Parte Drucktenhengst et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 2017

13307618 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017)

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. 13/307,618 11/30/2011 Rolf Drucktenhengst 9048-000008-US 2348 27572 7590 01/30/2017 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER CUMAR, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2017 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): troymailroom @hdp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROLF DRUCKTENHENGST and UDO EPING Appeal 2015-004628 Application 13/307,618 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—13. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 5 and 14 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-004628 Application 13/307,618 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below. 1. A sealing ring, particularly radial shaft sealing ring, for the sealing separation of an internal space (6), which in each case at least partially surrounds a shaft (7), from an external space (5), comprising: a sealing lip (2) delimited by a first and a second annular surface (3, 4) of a cone frustum, wherein, in an axial direction (11), the first annular surface (3) of a cone frustum is oriented towards the external space (5), and the second annular surface (4) of a cone frustum is oriented towards the internal space (6), wherein the annular surfaces (3, 4) of a cone frustum, in the installed position, are connected to each other via a ring- shaped contact surface (23) of the sealing lip (2), which rests on the shaft (7), wherein the first annular surface (3) of a cone frustum forms with the shaft (7) a first angle (P') of 23—40° in the installed position, wherein an inner diameter (24) of the ring-shaped contact surface (23), which rests on the shaft (7), is 1—15 mm in the installed position, as a function of the diameter of the given shaft (7) to be sealed off, wherein the second annular surface (4) of a cone frustum forms with a center axis of the sealing ring a second angle (a) of greater than 30° in the uninstalled state. REJECTION1 Claims 1—4 and 6—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reinhardt (US 2002/0074734 Al, pub. June 20, 2002). ANALYSIS Resolution of this appeal turns on whether or not Reinhardt teaches or suggests a second annular surface that forms a second angle a of greater than 30° with a center axis of the sealing ring in the uninstalled state. 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. 2 Appeal 2015-004628 Application 13/307,618 The Examiner found that Reinhardt discloses the claimed sealing ring having second annular surface 16 that is capable of exhibiting the second angle P of greater than 30 0 in an uninstalled state. Final Act. 4—5. First, the Examiner found that Reinhardt shows the claimed structures and therefore is capable of encircling the shaft and exhibiting the claimed second angle P in the uninstalled position, and claiming this manner in which the ring is to be used, such as in an uninstalled position, does not differentiate the sealing ring from the prior art. Id. at 5. The Examiner also found that Reinhardt discloses that the second angle P is preferably 30 0 in the installed state and reasoned that angle P would increase to greater than 30 0 in the uninstalled position when the ring is not compressed on the shaft. Ans. 10. Although we appreciate that Reinhardt discloses most features recited in claim 1, the claimed second angle a of greater than 30° in the uninstalled state defines the structure of the sealing ring and is more than a statement of intended use. The second angle a defines the orientation of the second annular surface relative to a central axis of the sealing ring. We agree with Appellants that Reinhardt does not disclose this angle. Reinhardt discloses a second annular surface (sealing lip surface 16) that is oriented toward an internal space (hydraulic side 6) and that forms an angle P of 20 0 with a plane 15 that would be parallel to the axis of sealing ring 1. Reinhardt 117, Fig. 2. Reinhardt discloses that Figure 2 is an enlarged view of a portion of Figure 1, which shows sealing ring 1 in an uninstalled state. Id. 16, 17. Reinhardt also discloses that angle P (beta) is selected to be 15 to 30 degrees in an uninstalled state and assumes values between 10 and 50 degrees, preferably 30 degrees, in an installed sealing ring. Id. ff 8, 10; see Appeal Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 5—6. 3 Appeal 2015-004628 Application 13/307,618 We are not persuaded that the second angle P (beta) of 30° for an installed sealing ring inherently discloses a second angle P of greater than 30° in an uninstalled sealing ring, as claimed. Ans. 10. First, the express teachings of Reinhardt indicate otherwise, as discussed above. Second, the second angle P actually decreases (rather than increases as the Examiner surmised) from an angle of 20-50° and preferably 30° in an installed state to angles of 20° and 15—30° in an uninstalled state. See Reinhardt || 8, 10, 17. This decrease in the second angle P results from a shifting of working plane 11 of annular helical spring 4 from a position on the internal hydraulic side 6 of sealing edge 13 in the uninstalled state (Figs. 1, 2) to just coincident with sealing edge 13 in the installed state (Fig. 3). Id. Tflf 16—18. This shift also results in first angle a (alpha) on the other side of sealing edge 13 decreasing from a value of 60° when sealing ring 1 is in an uninstalled state to 20-50° and preferably 30° when sealing ring 1 is in the installed state. Id. 8, 10, 16—18. Reinhardt also teaches that angle a (alpha) and angle P (beta) preferably are the same angle, i.e., 30°, in the installed state. Id. 110. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—13.2 2 We do not consider whether Reinhardt’s range of 15—30° renders obvious the claimed range of “greater than 30°” because the Examiner has not raised that issue. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that a prima facie case of obviousness exists “when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”) (citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Appellants disclose that second angles of 30-45° are advantageous and 35— 40° are preferred. Spec. 139. Appellants argue that the second angle a addresses problems unique to seals for shafts of 1—15 mm diameter. Appeal Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 6; Spec. 1 5. Reinhardt discloses seals for shafts ranging from 0.01 mm up to 200 mm diameter. Reply Br. 7—8; Appeal Br. 9; Ans. 11; Reinhardt 116, Fig. 1, claims 2, 3. 4 Appeal 2015-004628 Application 13/307,618 DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—13. REVERSED 5