Ex Parte Bode

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

13510052 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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.
13/510,052 05/16/2012 Ralf Bode 2009P13311WOUS 8704
22116 7590 02/08/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BYRD, EUGENE G
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALF BODE
Appeal 2015-004311
Application 13/510,052
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ralf Bode (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 16—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-004311
Application 13/510,052
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
16. A labyrinth seal for sealing a sealing region between a
rotor and stator of a rotary machine, comprising:
a base, and
a plurality of sealing rings which are formed on the base,
project into the sealing region and form, between them labyrinth
valleys bounded, laterally, by the sealing rings and, in a floor of
the valleys, by the base,
wherein the sealing rings, in at least one region, comprise
at least one material which is different from that of the base,
wherein the different material is softer than a rotor
material in a region of the labyrinth seal, and
wherein an adhesion-promoting intermediate layer made
of a third material is present between the base material and the
different material.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fairbanks US 4,608,145 Aug. 26, 1986
Ghasripoor US 6,969,231 B2 Nov. 29, 2005
Frederick1 GB 651,921 Apr. 11, 1951
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Frederick and Fairbanks.
II. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Frederick, Fairbanks, and Ghasripoor.
1 The Examiner lists this reference as Fredrick in the Final Action and
Examiner’s Answer, but this is a typographical error.
2
Appeal 2015-004311
Application 13/510,052
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Frederick and Fairbanks disclose or suggest
all of the limitations of independent claim 16. See Final Act. 2—3. In
particular, the Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to
provide an adhesive on the different material (b) of Fredrick [sic] as taught
by Fairbanks in order to provide a secure connection between the two
different materials.” Id. at 3.
Noting that Frederick describes an abradable (i.e. different) material
that is designed to “be rubbed away or [to] disintegrate[] on contact with a
member moving relatively thereto (Frederick 1,11. 48—50), Appellant argues
that “there is no motivation [whatsoever] in modifying Frederick to add an
adhesion-promoting layer.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant is correct. In Frederick, a secure connection is not desired.
Rather, as discussed supra, Frederick’s abradable material is designed to be
rubbed away or disintegrated. Modifying this material to be securely
connected, as proposed by the Examiner, would render Frederick’s
abradable material unsuitable for this intended purpose. Thus, the
Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 16, and claims 17—19, which depend therefrom.
Rejection II
Claim 20 depends from claim 16. The rejection of claim 20 relies
upon the same erroneous reasoning discussed supra. Ghasripoor does not
cure the deficiency in this reasoning. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
3
Appeal 2015-004311
Application 13/510,052
Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 for the same reason we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16—20 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
4