Ex Parte Aldridge

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2009

09966487 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte C. KENT ALDRIDGE
____________

Appeal 2009-010188
Application 09/966,487
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: November 30, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 8-21 and 38-47.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 8 is illustrative:

Appeal 2009-010188
Application 09/966,487

2
8. A method for installing a seal on a bearing assembly, the
method comprising:

forming a first interface surface in an inner bearing ring and a second
interface surface in an outer bearing ring;

crimping a first seal member to the first interface surface of the inner
ring;

crimping a second seal member to the second interface surface of the
outer ring; and

assembling the bearing assembly such that the first and second seal
members cooperate with one another to seal at least a portion of the bearing
assembly.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Reiter 4,336,971 Jun. 29, 1982
Mondak 5,695,290 Dec. 09, 1997

The method entails crimping a first seal member to a surface of an
inner ring and crimping a second seal member to an interface surface of an
outer ring.
Appealed claims 8-21 and 38-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mondak in view of Reiter. TPF1FPT
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the

TP
1
PT The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection based on McLarty.
Appeal 2009-010188
Application 09/966,487

3
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Mondak, like Appellant, discloses a method
of securing first and second seal members into grooves of surfaces of inner
and outer rings, respectively. As recognized by the Examiner, Mondak does
not disclose crimping the first and second seals into the inner and outer
rings. However, Reiter evidences that it was known in the art to crimp a seal
member into a groove of a ring. The Examiner points out that Reiter teaches
that permanently attaching the seal member to the bearing by a crimping
process prevents damage to the seal element from being installed incorrectly
and prevents contaminants from entering the interior of the bearing, which
are advantages over the removable, snap-fit seals of Mondak (see Ans. 4,
first para.). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ a crimping process to secure the seals and rings of Mondak.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Reiter does not
teach crimping a first seal member to the surface of an inner ring in addition
to crimping a second seal member to the surface of an outer ring. Securing
first and second seal members to inner and outer rings is taught by Mondak,
and we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to utilize the crimping process of Reiter for both sealing members of
Mondak.
Appeal 2009-010188
Application 09/966,487

4
Appellant also argues in the Reply Brief that a crimping tool other
than the one disclosed by Reiter would be needed for securing the sealing
member to the interior surface of Mondak’s outer ring and that Reiter does
not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to perform either of the crimping
operations proposed for the Mondak bearing. The Examiner explains,
however, that Reiter teaches that any number of procedures may be used to
effect the crimping process other than the one specifically disclosed. The
Examiner cites two Japanese references to support his argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of selecting a suitable
crimping tool for crimping a seal into an annual groove of a given bearing
structure. Appellant, on the other hand, has not presented any evidence that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to employ a crimping
process for securing the seals of Mondak. As noted by the Examiner,
“Appellant’s claimed invention is directed towards a method for mounting
seal to a bearing rather than a specific crimping tool” (Supp. Ans. 4, last
para.), and “even Appellant requires a different process (tool) for crimping
the first and second seal members” (Supp. Ans. 5, first para.).
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

UAFFIRMEDU
Appeal 2009-010188
Application 09/966,487

5

ssl

THOMPSON COBURN LLP
ONE US BANK PLAZA
SUITE 3500
ST LOUIS, MO 63101