Ex Parte Sakraschinsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2018

13261946 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/261,946 08/28/2014 513 7590 03/30/2018 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael Sakraschinsky 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. 61875 5722 EXAMINER YOON, SEAHEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2018 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL SAKRASCHINSKY, VOLKMAR KLEIN, and ARMIN SCHMIDT Appeal2017-007684 Application 13/261,946 1 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Michael Sakraschinsky et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 11-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Hydac Filtertechnik GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-007684 Application 13/261,946 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed subject matter relates "to an assembly for forming a seal between components." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 11, reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal and is representative of the claimed subject matter. 11. An assembly forming a seal, comprising: first and second components being relatively movable axially relative to one another along a longitudinal axis thereof and facing one another in an axial functional position of said first and second components; a first sealing zone on said first component; a sealing surface on a second sealing zone of said second component; a radial seal on said first sealing zone and sealingly engaging and interacting with said sealing surface in a functional position of said radial seal; and a third component being coupled to an actuating part being movable relative to said radial seal along said longitudinal axis and engaging said radial seal in an axial direction along said longitudinal axis deforming said radial seal radially of said longitudinal axis and increasing a sealing force thereof. Appeal Br., Appendix A at i (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 11, 13-16, 18, and 21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lampert (US 7,396,377 B2, iss. July 8, 2008). 2. Claims 12, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lampert and Gillenberg (US 8,147,576 B2, iss. Apr. 3, 2012). 2 Appeal2017-007684 Application 13/261,946 Anticipation ANALYSIS Claim 11 requires "an actuating part ... deforming said radial seal radially of said longitudinal axis and increasing a sealing force thereof." Appeal Br., Appendix A at i (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Lampert discloses "an actuating part 28 ... engaging said radial seal 24 in an axial direction along said longitudinal axis deforming said radial seal 24 radially of said longitudinal axis and increasing a sealing force thereof." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also found that Lampert's seal "has both axial and radial sealing action" and "[t]herefore, it is clear that the seal can be deformed both axially and radially." Adv. Act. 1 (mailed Nov. 10, 2016). Appellants argue that Lampert's seal 24 "cannot be deformed" because, according to Lampert, contact "between the mounting ring 21 and the housing cover 13 prevents the profiled seal 24 from being deformed if the housing cover 13 and the housing 10 are connected with excessive pressing force." Appeal Br. 4 (quoting Lampert 3:34--39). According to Appellants, Lampert does not disclose the claimed actuating part because Lampert does not deform the seal radially as required by claim 11. Id. Appellants also argue that even if Lampert' s seal has both axial and radial sealing action, "such sealing action does not necessarily and inherently require a third component engaging the seal in an axial direction to radially deform the seal and increase its sealing force." Id. at 5. According to Appellants, even though "the Lampert groove side 28 may be shown in Figure 2 as touching the profiled seal 28, it does not disclose or show it as 3 Appeal2017-007684 Application 13/261,946 engaging it in a manner that deforms the seal 24 in a manner that increases its sealing force." Reply Br. 3. In response to Appellants' argument that Lampert teaches prevention of deformation, the Examiner found that Lampert only discloses prevention of deformation in response to "excessive pressing force." Ans. 2 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also found that "the actuating part 28 of the housing cover 13 clearly engages with the seal 24, the actuating part 28 applying some degree of compression to the seal 24." Id. at 3. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not explain adequately how Lampert's actuating part 28 radially deforms seal 24. See Final Act. 2-3; Adv. Act. 1; Ans. 2-3. Lampert discloses seal 24 creating axial and radial seals. Id. at 3:47, 4:36-37. Creating a radial sealing force alone, however, does not meet the limitations of claim 11, because claim 11 also requires "an actuating part ... deforming said radial seal radially." Appeal Br., Appendix A at i (Claims App.) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3. Neither Lampert's figures nor the portions of its written description cited by the Examiner depict deformation of seal 24. See Final Act. 2-3; Adv. Act. 1; Ans. 2-3; Lampert 3:11-29, 3:46-47, Figs. 1, 2. Moreover, even if the Examiner correctly found that contact between the end of groove side 28 and seal 24 results in some "compression," that finding does not allege, or support with adequate evidence and reasoning, a finding that such compression amounts to (or causes) radial deformation of seal 24. See Ans. 3. Axial compression of some seals may cause radial deformation, but the Examiner's findings do not suggest that Lampert inherently discloses radial deformation due to axial compression applied by actuating part 28. 4 Appeal2017-007684 Application 13/261,946 See id. (referring to compression caused by contact between actuating arm 28 and seal 24, but not mentioning radial deformation). Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 as anticipated. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-16, 18, and 21, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 11, as anticipated. Obviousness The Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 12, 17, and 19 does not address the deficiencies discussed above regarding the Examiner's finding that Lampert discloses the claimed actuating part that radially deforms the seal. See Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 19-20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 12, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed above in the anticipation analysis. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-21. REVERSED 5