Ex Parte Addis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

11398237 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

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.
11/398,237 04/05/2006 Mark E. Addis 085.10712-US-AA(05-146-2) 8019
52237 7590 10/30/2013
BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARK E. ADDIS
____________________

Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark E. Addis (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 27, and 31-35. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 26, 31, and 32 are independent. Claim 26 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and reads:
26. A system comprising:
a brush seal having a body;
a brush pack secured to said body;
said body including a backing plate and a
side plate having a portion spaced from said brush
pack and forming a gap therewith;
said side plate having a first face and a
second face and a first fluid passageway having an
inlet in said first face and an outlet in said second
face for discharging a cooling fluid into said gap
between said brush pack and said side plate,
wherein said first and second faces each extend
substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of said
brush pack;
a first engine component having a surface
which abuts said first face and a second fluid
passageway extending through said first engine
component and forming a continuous fluid
passageway with said first fluid passageway;
said second fluid passageway having an
outlet in said surface of said first engine
component;
said outlet of said second fluid passageway
being in contact with the inlet of said first fluid
passageway to form said continuous fluid
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

3
passageway and for delivering cooling fluid from
said second fluid passageway to said first cooling
passageway; and
said brush pack having a first end which
contact said body and a second end which contacts
a surface of a second engine component.

REJECTIONS
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Morrison (US 5,799,952; issued Sep. 1, 1998).
Claims 26, 27, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Aksit (US 6,533,284 B2; issued Mar. 18, 2003) and
Morrison.

ANALYSIS
Claims 31 and 32 – Anticipation - Morrison
The Examiner found that Morrison discloses a brush seal including a
brush pack 18, a backing plate 14, a side plate 16 having a first face (“first
face facing 11”) and a second face (“face opposite the first face”), and a first
fluid passageway 26 having an inlet formed in the first face and an outlet
formed in the second face of the side plate. Ans. 3 (citing Morrison, fig. 1).
Appellant contends that Morrison does not disclose the claimed
“backing plate.” Reply Br. 3. Morrison discloses a mounting ring 14.
Morrison, col. 2, ll. 35-37; fig. 1. Appellant contends that the mounting ring
14 is not a “plate.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that the Specification
shows that the backing plate 55 is a plate-like structure that extends parallel
to the brush bristles and covers a portion of the brush bristles. Id. Appellant
states that a “plate” is “a smooth, flat, relatively thin, rigid body of uniform
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

4
thickness,” whereas a “ring” is “a circular object form, line or arrangement
with a vacant circular center” and “a ring is not a plate because it is not flat.”
Id. Appellant’s contentions are persuasive.
The Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
language as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant does not direct us to a definition of “plate” in the Specification.
We note that a dictionary definition of “plate” is “a smooth flat thin piece of
material.”1 This definition is similar to Appellant’s definition of “plate.” It
is also consistent with Appellant’s written description and drawings. For
instance, Figure 2 shows that the backing plate 55 has opposed, parallel, flat
surfaces and a uniform thickness.
We note that a dictionary definition of “ring” is “a circular band for
holding, connecting, hanging, pulling, packing, or sealing.”2 Morrison’s
mounting ring 14 depicted in Figure 1 has a structure that is consistent with
this definition, as well as with the definition of “ring” provided by
Appellant. The structure of the mounting ring 14 is further depicted in
Figure 5 of Morrison. As shown, the mounting ring 14 has a circular band
configuration with a vacant interior. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed “backing plate” reads on Morrison’s
mounting ring 14 implicitly relies on an overly-broad, and thus
unreasonable, construction of “plate.” Reply Br. 4. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 31.

1 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003).
2 Id.
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

5
For claim 32, the Examiner relies on the same findings regarding the
“backing plate” as those discussed supra for claim 31. Ans. 3-4. Thus, we
also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 32 for
similar reasons.
Claims 26, 27, and 31-35 – Obviousness – Aksit and Morrison
Claims 26, 27, and 33-35
The Examiner found that Aksit discloses a brush pack 353, a backing
plate 338, a side plate 336 having a first face (“a first face facing 353”), a
second face opposite the first face, and a first fluid passageway 346 having
an inlet in the first face and an outlet in the second face. Ans. 6 (citing
Aksit, fig. 5). The Examiner also found that Aksit discloses a second fluid
passageway (“passage having the arrow”) extending in a first engine
component and having an outlet in contact with the inlet of the first fluid
passageway. Id. The Examiner found that Aksit does not disclose that the
second fluid passageway extends through the first engine component. Ans.
7. The Examiner relied on Morrison for disclosure regarding this feature
and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to have Aksit’s second fluid passageway extend through the first engine
component as taught by Morrison. Id. (citing Morrison, fig. 1).
Claim 26 recites “said first and second faces each extend substantially
parallel to a longitudinal axis of said brush pack.” We disagree with the
Examiner’s findings for the locations of the “inlet” and “outlet” of the “first
fluid passageway” in Aksit. In Figure 5 of Aksit, the direction of cooling
medium flow is indicated by a downward-extending arrow in the cooling
medium supply 348 and an arrow extending through the nozzle 346. Aksit
states that “jets of cooling medium flow from the cooling medium supply or
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

6
plenum 348 through the nozzles 346 directly onto the juncture of bristle tips
350 and sealing surface 352.” Aksit, col. 4, ll. 30-33; fig. 5. The “inlet” of
the flow passage through nozzle 346 is at the left face of the upstream
backing plate 336, and the “outlet” of the flow passage through the nozzle
346 is at the bottom surface of the upstream backing plate 336. Thus,
Aksit’s device includes an inlet in the “second face,” not in the “first face,”
and an outlet in the bottom face of the upstream backing plate 336, not in the
“second face.”
Appellant correctly contends that the outlet of the first fluid
passageway in the side plate (336) shown in Figure 5 of Aksit is located in
the bottom surface of the side plate. App. Br. 12-13. Appellant further
contends that the outlet is located in a surface that is perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the brushes. Id. at 13; Reply Br. 6. Appellant contends
that the outlet of the passageway 26 shown in Figure 1 of Morrison is also in
a surface that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the brush pack. Id.
Consistent with these contentions, we understand Appellant’s position is that
the longitudinal axis of the brushes (bristles 340) shown in Figure 5 of Aksit,
and the longitudinal axis of the brushes (bristles 18) shown in Figure 1 of
Morrison, extend in the vertical direction, and thus, extend perpendicular to
the bottom surface of the backing plate 336 of Aksit and to the outlet surface
of the passageway 26 of Morrison.
In response, the Examiner found that the longitudinal axis of the
brushes or brush pack “is into the page” in Figure 5 of Aksit. Ans. 11; see
id. at 8 (showing annotated version of Figure 5 of Aksit). We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner did not provide any support for this finding.
Reply Br. 6. The Examiner also stated that “[t]he outlet of the passageway
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

7
is located on a surface that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
brush pack, see figure 5 above.” Id. (emphasis added). However, in order
for the bottom surface of the backing plate 336 to be perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the brush pack, the longitudinal axis must extend
vertically in Figure 5 of Aksit, not “into the page.” Claim 26 requires that
the second face extend “substantially parallel to,” not perpendicular to, a
longitudinal axis of the brush pack. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding
that Aksit teaches the claim limitation reciting “said first and second faces
each extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of said brush pack”
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner’s application of Morrison does not cure the deficiencies
of Aksit. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 26, or
its dependent claims 27 and 33-35.
Claims 31 and 32
Claim 31 calls for “a first fluid passageway having an inlet in said
first face and an outlet in said second face for discharging a cooling fluid.”
According to the Examiner’s findings discussed supra, Aksit’s device
depicted in Figure 5 includes an inlet in the “second face,” not in the “first
face,” and an outlet in the bottom face of the upstream backing plate 336,
not in the “second face.”
The Examiner also found that Aksit discloses that the side plate has an
integral windage cover (“the end portion of the side plate that covers the
brush pack”) (Ans. 6), and that the “windage cover is located beneath the
first fluid passageway (see figures of Aksit)” (id. at 7). The Examiner’s
annotated version of Figure 5 of Aksit shows the location of “[w]indage
cover below the outlet.” Ans. 9. We agree with Appellant’s contention that
Appeal 2011-013638
Application 11/398,237

8
“it is physically impossible for the windage cover to be located beneath
(emphasis added) the outlet of the first fluid passageway in the side plate.”
Reply Br. 10; see also App. Br. 10. Rather, because the “windage cover” in
Aksit identified by the Examiner includes the outlet of the “first fluid
passageway,” the “windage cover” is not located below the outlet.
The Examiner relied on Morrison for disclosure regarding the
limitation reciting “a second fluid passageway extending through said first
engine component.” Ans. 7. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
application of Morrison does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner’s
reliance on Aksit discussed supra. Reply Br. 10; see also App. Br. 11.
Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 31.
Similar to claim 31, claim 32 recites “a windage cover attached to said
side plate, said windage cover being located below the outlet of said first
fluid passageway.” Emphasis added. The Examiner relied on the same
findings for claim 32 as for claim 31. Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 32.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26, 27, and 31-35 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls