Jason D. Himes

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2019

14745593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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. 14/745,593 06/22/2015 Jason D. Himes 67097-3225PUS1;81636US01 9352 54549 7590 08/02/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER CUMAR, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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 JASON D. HIMES ____________ Appeal 2019-001508 Application 14/745,5931 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest of the present application.” Appeal Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2019-001508 Application 14/745,593 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A seal assembly for a gas turbine engine comprising: a primary seal that includes an inner face having a protrusion configured to seal relative to a seal land, the protrusion provided on segmented shoes circumferentially spaced from one another by gaps, the shoes positioned in a relaxed state; and a removable material encasing the protrusion with the shoes in the relaxed, unexpanded state. Rejections Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 15–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Justak (US 8,172,232 B2, iss. May 8, 2012) and Snowsill (US 7,726,940 B2, iss. June 1, 2010). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Justak, Snowsill, and Spangler et al. (US 2012/0171045 A1, pub. July 5, 2012) (hereinafter “Spangler”). Claims 5, 12–14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Justak, Snowsill, and Sargent et al. (US 4,426,087, iss. Jan. 17, 1984) (hereinafter “Sargent”). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, “a removable material encasing the protrusion with the shoes in the relaxed, unexpanded state.” Appeal Br. Claims App. Independent claims 8 and 15 have similar recitations. See id. Appeal 2019-001508 Application 14/745,593 3 For the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner finds Justak substantially discloses the seal assembly as claimed, but is silent as to a removable material. See Final Act. 2–3. To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner finds Snowsill teaches a “known method of having a removable material over a seal portion to protect the seal from damage during installation.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on a different finding, i.e., that Snowsill teaches a removable material encasing the protrusion with the shoes in an unexpanded state, as required by the claims. See id. The Appellant argues that Snowsill fails to teach applying sacrificial material when the seal is in an unexpanded state. Appeal Br. 5. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Snowsill’s removable material (e.g., sacrificial material in-fill 26) is present in the seal’s expanded state as opposed to the unexpanded state. In the expanded state, the seal’s open diameter is increased by expanding seal segments 22 to form gaps 25, which are maintained by sacrificial material. See Snowsill, col. 2, ll. 55–67. This expanded state occurs during installation of the seal. See id. Figure 2 of Snowsill shows an expanded state of seal segments 22 with sacrificial material in-fill 26 therebetween. In the unexpanded state, seal segments 22 are biased to form a smaller open diameter. See id. at 3, ll. 43–55. This unexpanded state occurs after installation of the seal. See id. Figure 4 of Snowsill –– by use of solid lines –– shows an unexpanded state of seal segments 22. See id. Figure 4, however, does not show sacrificial material in-fill 26 as part of the seal. On this record, we determine that the Examiner fails to adequately explain –– using evidence or technical reasoning –– why a person of Appeal 2019-001508 Application 14/745,593 4 ordinary skill in the art would understand Snowsill’s sacrificial material, which retains seal segments 22 in an expanded state during installation, as encasing seal segments 22 in an unexpanded state. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Snowsill teaches a removable material encasing the protrusion with the shoes in an unexpanded state, as required by the claims, is inadequately supported. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 15–18, and 20 as unpatentable over Justak and Snowsill. The remaining rejections based on the combination of Justak and Snowsill in combination with Spangler or Sargent rely on the same deficiency as discussed above. This deficiency is not cured by the additional findings and reasoning of the remaining rejections. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Justak, Snowsill, and Spangler, and claims 5, 12–14, and 19 as unpatentable over Justak, Snowsill, and Sargent. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. REVERSED