Ex Parte Burd et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201713437513 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/437,513 04/02/2012 Steven W. Burd 67097-1696PUSl;59936US01 1289 54549 7590 12/04/2017 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 12/04/2017 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN W. BURD, ROGER W. BURSEY, GONZALO F. MARTINEZ, and MEGGAN H. HARRIA-MILLER Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—21, and 27—30, which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 INVENTION Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A seal for use between a first duct and a second duct and, said ducts having relative motion therebetween, said seal comprising: a first plurality of fingers attached to said first duct, wherein a proximal end of each of said first plurality of fingers are rigidly fixed to and directly contact a surface on said first duct, a seal land attached to said second duct, the seal land is located radially inward from each of the first plurality of fingers relative to a longitudinal axis of the first duct, and a seal attached to said seal land, said seal directly contacts said plurality of fingers, wherein a first surface of one of said plurality of fingers or said seal is metallic and a second surface of an other of said seal or said plurality of fingers is non-metallic. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—3, 7—9, 11, 13—18, 21, and 27—30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honeycutt (US 4,645,217, issued Feb. 24, 1987) and Glowacki (US 5,222,692, issued June 29, 1993). II. Claims 5, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Ausdenmoore (US 6,415,599 Bl, issued July 9, 2002).2 2 The rejection heading also lists claim 11. Final Act. 9; Ans. 13. However, claim 11 is rejected under rejection I, and the rejection statement for rejection II does not discuss claim 11. Final Act. 9—10; Ans. 13—14. Accordingly, we do not consider claim 11 for rejection II. 2 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 III. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Klenk (US 2005/0067793 Al, published March 31, 2005). IV. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, Klenk, and Brozovic (US 4,681,651, issued July 21, 1987). ANALYSIS I— Claims 1—3, 7—9, 11, 13—18, 21, and 27—30 over Honeycutt and Glowacki Claims 1—3, 7—9, 1L and 27—29 As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Honeycutt discloses a first duct (augmentor casing 14), a second duct (unison ring 28 or supporting sleeve 44), and a seal comprising a first plurality of fingers (finger seal means 12, flange 4, flange 6) attached to first duct 14, with a proximal end of each finger rigidly fixed to and directly contacting a surface of first duct 14 (“[Fig. 1] shows proximal end of 6 is attached to 14, and 6 directly contacts a surface of 14”), a seal land (cylindrical sleeve 59) attached to second duct 28, where seal land 59 is located radially inward from each of the fingers 12, 4, 6 relative to a longitudinal axis of first duct 14, and wherein a first surface of one of the seal or the plurality of fingers is metallic (“the first surface of finger 12 is metallic”). Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds that Honeycutt does not disclose a seal provided on seal land 59, and where the seal has a second surface that is non-metallic. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Glowacki discloses a seal assembly with a non-metallic seal (Teflon ring 25) “directly on 13” (slider shoe 13), where 3 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 non-metallic seal 25 and “22 of 20” (seal 22 of carrier ring 20) have relative motion. Id. at 4 (citing Glowacki, col. 4,1. 15, Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify seal land 59 of Honeycutt to have a non-metallic seal, as taught by Glowacki, “for the expected benefit of providing a tight seal and thus an improved sealing system.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Honeycutt does not disclose that seal land 59 is located between the plurality of fingers and the longitudinal axis of first duct 14. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes, however, that it would have been obvious to modify Honeycutt to have seal land 59 on first duct 14 and the plurality of fingers on second duct 44, such that seal land 59 is between the plurality of fingers and the longitudinal axis of first duct 14, “since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.” Id. According to the Examiner, one skilled in the art would realize that rearranging the seal land and plurality of fingers in Honeycutt would yield the predicted result of sealing. Id. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Honeycutt would result in seal land 59 on first duct 14, but not attached to the second duct, as claimed, and would further result in the plurality of fingers on second duct 44, and not attached to first duct 14, as claimed. Appeal Br. 3. We agree with Appellants that the proposed modification of Honeycutt would not result in “a plurality of fingers attached to said first duct” or “a seal land attached to said second duct,” as required by claim 1. Appellants also assert that the Examiner’s interpretation of “plurality of fingers” is broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants acknowledge that Honeycutt discloses finger seals 12, but 4 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the annular flanges 4, 6 of Honeycutt as the “proximal end of each of said first plurality of fingers,” as claimed. Id. This argument is persuasive also. Honeycutt discloses that the seal construction 2 comprises annular supporting flanges 4, 6 connected to an external surface of augmentor duct 14, and finger seal means 12 extending between flanges 4, 6 and nozzle actuating cylindrical sleeve. See Honeycutt, col. 3,11. 34—37, 52—53, Fig. 1. The finger seal means 12 includes metallic members 30, 32 having flexible fingers 34, 36. Id. at col. 3,11. 54—55, Fig. 2. Figure 1 of Honeycutt shows that a first end of finger seal means 12 is attached to flanges 4, 6 by a rivet 58 at a location spaced from augmentor duct 14, and a second end of finger seal means 12 contacts cylindrical sleeve 59. Assuming that the first end of finger seal means 12 is the proximal end, the first end does not “directly contact a surface on said first duct,” as claimed. The Examiner responds that “when Honeycutt is modified with rearrangements of parts,” this “will show the seal land 8 is located radially inward from each of the first plurality of fingers of the seal 12 relative to a longitudinal axis of the first duct 59” and “the first plurality of fingers of seal 12 is attached to said first duct 59 and a seal land 8 is attached to said second duct 14.'” Ans. 16 (emphases added), 20 (annotated Figure 4 of Honeycutt indicating location of “proximal end” of finger seal means 12). Accordingly, we understand that this proposed rearrangement of parts results in cylindrical sleeve 59 corresponding to the claimed first duct, cylindrical portion 8 of flange 4 corresponding to the claimed seal land, and augmentor duct 14 corresponding to the claimed second duct. 5 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 Appellants reply that the proposed rejection relocates finger seals 12 from being attached to the rearwardly-extending cylindrical portion 8 on the flange 4 to being attached to the cylindrical sleeve 59. Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that this arrangement would change the function of the cylindrical sleeve 59 from contacting a free end of finger seals 12, as sleeve 59 moves axially relative to duct 14, to a support for attaching finger seals 12 (id. (citing Honeycutt, col. 2,11. 18—22, col. 3,11. 52—53)), and would also change the function of rearwardly-extending cylindrical portion 8 on flange 4 from supporting finger seals 12 to a seal land for contacting the free ends of finger seals 12 (id.). We agree with Appellants that it is not apparent how rearwardly- extending cylindrical portion 8 could function as a seal land, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would attempt to adjust the axial length of cylindrical portion 8 to “suit the required sealing environment,” as proposed by the Examiner. Reply Br. 3; Ans. 5. Rather, flanges 4, 6 are provided in the augmentor arrangement to rigidly support an end of finger seal means 12 such that the opposite free ends of finger seal means 12 have sliding contact with a surface of cylindrical sleeve 59. If Honeycutt were modified such that the “proximal ends” of the respective fingers seal means 12 shown in Figure 1 were rigidly attached to cylindrical sleeve 59 and not to flanges 4, 6, then the support function of flanges 4 and 6 would be eliminated. Consequently, flanges 4, 6 would no longer be needed to provide the purpose for which they are designed. Thus, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason with a rational underpinning to modify Honeycutt as 6 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 proposed. The Examiner’s application of Glowacki does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on Honeycutt.3 For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3, 7—9, 11, and 27—29 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Honeycutt and Glowacki. Claims 13—18, 21, and 30 Claim 13 is directed to “[a] gas turbine engine seal for use between a first duct and a second duct in said gas turbine engine,” comprising, inter alia, “a first plurality of fingers attached to said first duct,” “a seal land attached to said second duct,” and “a seal located directly on a surface of said seal land,” similar to claim 1. The Examiner’s findings and reasoning for claim 13 are substantially the same as for claim 1. See Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 8—9. We note that the Examiner finds that flanges 4 and 6 disclosed in Honeycutt are included in the “first duct 14.” Ans. 8. However, for reasons similar to those discussed above with regard to the Examiner’s proposed rearrangements of parts, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, or claims 14—18, 21, and 30 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Honeycutt and Glowacki. II—Claims 5, 6, 10, and 12 over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Ausdenmoore Claims 5, 6, 10, and 12 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. The Examiner’s application of Ausdenmoore fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 9—10. Accordingly, we do not sustain 3 Claim 1 recites “a first surface of one of said plurality of fingers or said seal is metallic and a second surface of an other of said seal or said plurality of fingers is non-metallic.” Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App. (emphasis added)). We construe the term “said seal” to be the “seal attached to said seal land,” not “[a] seal” as recited in the claim preamble. 7 Appeal 2017-001261 Application 13/437,513 the rejection of these dependent claims as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Ausdenmoore. Ill— Claim 19 over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Klenk Claim 19 depends from claim 13. The Examiner’s application of Klenk fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 13. Final Act. 10-11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Klenk. IV— Claim 20 over Honeycutt, Glowacki, Klenk, and Brozovic Claim 20 depends from claim 13. The Examiner’s application of Brozovic fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 13. Final Act. 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims as unpatentable over Honeycutt, Glowacki, and Brozovic. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1—3, 5—21, and 27—30. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation