Ex Parte Turnquist et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13076724 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/076,724 03/31/2011 Norman Arnold Turnquist 242913-1 4287
6147 7590 11/01/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
CUMAR, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORMAN ARNOLD TURNQUIST,
RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ ERDMENGER,
XIAOQING ZHENG,
ROBBERT CHRISTIAAN PANNEKEET, and
KEITH MICHAEL PARKER
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosure is directed to “aspirating face seals, and more
specifically to a secondary seal having a plurality of flexible elements of an
aspirating face seal used in machines, for example, a gas turbine engine.”
Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An aspirating face seal comprising:
a primary seal comprising a first seal component and a
non-rotatable second seal component; wherein the first seal
component is configured to be coupled to a rotor and rotatable
with the rotor;
a secondary seal comprising a plurality of flexible
elements and configured to be disposed between the non-
rotatable second seal component and a stator housing; and
a biasing device coupled to the non-rotatable second seal
component such that the non-rotatable second seal component is
biased and moved along an axial direction away from the first
seal component during a non-operating condition.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wilkinson US 4,403,779 Sept. 13, 1983
Pope US 5,284,347 Feb. 8, 1994
Harms US 5,480,160 Jan. 2, 1996
Skinner US 6,257,586 B1 July 10, 2001
Tong US 2002/0140176 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Bhate US 2004/0256807 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
2
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
REJECTIONS1
(I) Claims 1, 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 (a) as unpatentable over Pope and Wilkinson.2 Final Act. 3.
(II) Claims 3,11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Pope, Wilkinson, and Tong. Final Act. 13.
(III) Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Pope, Wilkinson, and Skinner. Final Act. 14.
(IV) Claims 5,15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Pope, Wilkinson, and Bhate. Final Act. 15.
(V) Claims 1, 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 (a) as unpatentable over Pope and Harms. Final Act. 16.
1 In the Answer, the Examiner appears to have replaced Rejection (I), as set
forth in the Final Action dated November 6, 2014, with Rejection (V),
without explanation as to why this change was made or as to the status of
Rejection (I). See Ans. 5—17. Rejection (I) is not re-stated in the Answer,
but is not indicated as being “withdrawn.” See id. at 4. An appeal is taken
from the decision of the Examiner twice rejecting the claims. 37 C.F.R. §
41.31. As such, we review the decision of the Examiner as set forth in the
Office action from which the appeal is taken, as modified by any advisory
action and pre-appeal brief conference decision. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1);
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) (“For purposes of the examiner’s answer,
any rejection that relies upon any Evidence not relied upon in the Office
action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory action)
shall be designated by the primary examiner as a new ground of rejection”).
2 In the Final Action, the headings for Rejections (I) and (V) list claims 22
and 24 as part of each of these rejections, and the heading for Rejection (IV)
lists claim 23 as part of that rejection. Final Act. 3, 15—16. However, claims
22—24 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
OPINION
Rejection (I)
Appellants make arguments for claims 1, 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and
20 as a group. See Appeal Br. 11, 14. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the
appeal, with claims 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 standing or falling with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Pope discloses most of the elements required
by claim 1, including a secondary seal, but fails to disclose a plurality of
flexible elements in the secondary seal. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner relies
on strands 32 of Wilkinson to remedy this deficiency, reasoning that
replacing seal 70 of Pope with a plurality of flexible elements [strands 32] as
disclosed by Wilkinson would provide “the expected benefit of... a tight
seal in a fluid environment.” Id. at 4.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Pope, based on Wilkinson, is improper because Pope and Wilkinson have
different principles of operation. See Appeal Br. 11—14. Specifically,
Appellants contend “the principle of operation of Pope requires permitting
the axial movement of the face seal ring from 80 from the seal surface 46,”
and “Wilkinson teaches a principle of operation limiting the axial movement
of the annular floating member 19, while allowing free movement in the
radial direction.” Id. at 12—13. In this regard, Appellants quote column 2,
lines 29—35 and 38-41 of Wilkinson and assert that “[i]f the face seal ring 80
of Pope [were] modified using annular floating member 19 of Wilkinson,
4
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
then axial movement [would be] restricted which would render the system of
Pope incompatible.”3
Appellants’ argument on this point does not apprise us of Examiner
error. First, Appellants’ contention relies on a bodily incorporation of
structure from Wilkinson, specifically, structure that is not relied upon by
the Examiner in Rejection (I). The Examiner relies on Wilkinson to teach a
seal element comprising a plurality of flexible elements (strands 32). See
Final Act. 3. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that
Wilkinson discloses this feature. See Appeal Br. 11—14. Nor do Appellants
contest that this structure taught by Wilkinson would provide the benefit of a
tight seal in a fluid environment. Id.', see also Final Act. 4. Instead,
Appellants’ arguments regarding axial movement relate to structure (and its
functionality) in Wilkinson other than strands 32. Appeal Br. 11—14. Thus,
Appellants’ argument fails to address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
based on these references.
Second, even assuming arguendo that Wilkinson teaches limiting
axial movement of member 19, and this arrangement in Wilkinson affects
the operation of strands 32, Wilkinson also teaches allowing axial movement
of member 19. See Wilkinson 2:29—35 (stating, “A small clearance is
provided between the radial surfaces 16,17, and the opposed surfaces 21,
22, of the outer portion 20 of the member 19, thus permitting limited axial
movement of the member 19.”). In other words, Wilkinson does not prevent
all axial movement of member 19, rather, Wilkinson explicitly permits at
least some axial movement of member 19. Appellants provide no persuasive
3 The Answer does not comment on Appellants’ arguments relating to
Wilkinson, and Appellants’ Reply Brief does not elaborate on the arguments
regarding Wilkinson set forth in the Appeal Brief.
5
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
explanation as to why the amount of movement permitted by Wilkinson
would “render the system of Pope incompatible” if modified as proposed by
the Examiner. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Pope and Wilkinson. Claims 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and
20 fall with claim 1.
Rejections (II)—(IV)
Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above with respect to
Rejection (I) to address Rejections (II)—(IV). See Appeal Br. 14—15.
Accordingly, we affirm these rejections for the same reasons discussed
above regarding Rejection (I).
Rejection (V)
Appellants make arguments for claims 1, 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and
20, with respect to Rejection (V), as a group. See Appeal Br. 15—16. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16,
17, and 20 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner makes the same findings regarding Pope as those made
in Rejection (I), but relies on Harms (rather than Wilkinson) to teach a seal
having a plurality of flexible elements 21. Final Act. 16—17. The Examiner
again finds that modifying Pope to have a seal with a plurality of flexible
elements would provide a tight seal in a fluid environment. Final Act. 17.
Appellants make similar arguments against the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Pope and Harms as discussed above regarding Rejection (I).
Appeal Br. 15—16. Specifically, Appellants state that, “as with Wilkinson,
the principle of operation of Harms also requires limiting of axial movement
of the seal.” Id. at 16.
6
Appeal 2016-000960
Application 13/076,724
Appellants’ argument on this point is unavailing because it relies on a
bodily incorporation of the structure disclosed by Harms despite the
Examiner’s reliance on Harms to teach only a seal having a plurality of
flexible elements. Id.', see also Final Act. 16—17. Appellants provide no
persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Pope and Harms would require the incorporation structure from Harms
(aside from seal 12A with flexible elements 21), thus causing the problem in
Pope discussed by Appellants. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s
finding that Harms discloses a plurality of flexible elements or the
Examiner’s finding that implementing these in Pope’s apparatus would
result in a tight seal. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Pope and Harms. Claims 2, 6—10, 13, 14, 16,
17, and 20 fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm Rejections (I)—(V).
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7