Ex Parte Kocurek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

13493984 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
13/493,984 06/11/2012 Christopher George Kocurek OTD031074CON1_SUBS0009-1 4620
64833 7590 04/21/2017
FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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 CHRISTOPHER GEORGE KOCUREK
____________________

Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher George Kocurek (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the rejection of claims 33–58. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 33, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
33. A system, comprising:
a fluid seal, comprising:
a first seal interface extending circumferentially
about a central axis of the fluid seal;
a second seal interface extending circumferentially
about the central axis of the fluid seal, wherein the first
and second seal interfaces face radially away from one
another relative to the central axis;
a body elastomer portion extending
circumferentially along the first and second seal
interfaces; and
a first elastomer portion extending
circumferentially along the first seal interface, wherein the
first elastomer portion is recessed within the body
elastomer portion; and
a second elastomer portion extending
circumferentially along the second seal interface, wherein
the second elastomer portion is recessed within the body
elastomer portion, wherein the body, first, and second
elastomer portions directly contact one another and are
vulcanized together to define vulcanized bonds with cross-
links directly between the body, first, and second
elastomer portions.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Watanabe
Fauble
Potter
Knapp
Chisnell
Keene
US 4,657,965
US 5,941,286
US 6,755,422 B2
US 2006/0192349 A1
US 7,407,165 B1
US 7,740,248 B2
Apr. 14, 1987
Aug. 24, 1999
June 29, 2004
Aug. 31, 2006
Aug. 5, 2008
June 22, 2010
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
3
Cleveland1 GB 638,652 June 14, 1950

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 33–58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
II. Claims 33–36, 40, 42–48, and 51–56 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and
Fauble.
III. Claims 33–37, 40, 42–49, 51, 52, and 56 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland,
and Fauble.
IV. Claims 37–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Knapp.2
V. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.
VI. Claims 41 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble, and Keene.
VII. Claims 33–56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keene, Cleveland, and Fauble.

1 The Examiner and Appellant refers to GB 638,652 as Cleveland (see Final
Act. 6); however, Cleveland is the name of the Chartered Patent Agents who
prosecuted this patent. The first named inventor is Arthur Edward Bingham.
Accordingly, we refer to this patent as “Bingham.”
2 The statement of this rejection (Final Act. 15) includes claim 49; however,
the explanation of the rejection does not discuss claim 49 and claim 49
depends from independent claim 47 which is also not address. Accordingly,
we understand the inclusion of claim 49 in the statement of this rejection to
be a typographical error.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
4
VIII. Claims 57 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.
IX. Claims 57 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.
X. Claims 57 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Keene, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.

DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is to “‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art
to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”’ Ariad Pharms.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
Id. This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention
understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually
invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id.
(citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)).
Independent claim 33 recites elastomer portions that “directly contact
one another and are vulcanized together to define vulcanized bonds with
cross-links directly between the body, first, and second elastomer portions.”
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
5
Appeal Br. 85. Claim 47 similarly recites elastomer portions that “directly
contact one another are vulcanized together to define vulcanized bonds with
cross-links directly between the body and first elastomer portions” and claim
52 recites a body and first elastomer portions that “directly contact one
another and are vulcanized together to define vulcanized bonds with cross-
links directly between the body and first elastomer portions.” Id. at 87, 88.
The Examiner determines that “[i]t is unclear what applicant is trying
to mean by ‘cross-links directly. . .portions’, since the specification states
that the vulcanization is done by catalyst and has not stated that the catalyst
is removed or gone while or during vulcanization step.” Final Act. 6. In the
Answer, the Examiner clarifies that his position is that the Specification does
not provide support for this limitation because “[t]he claimed embodiment
(1) recites vulcanization (as stated in each independent claim) and (2) has no
boundary layer produced by the process defined in Specification paragraph
0028.” Ans. 3. In support of this position, the Examiner explains that the
Specification does not provide support for an embodiment in which there is
no boundary layer and the first and second layers are vulcanized. See id. at
3–4. The Examiner reasons that the use of catalysts in the vulcanization
process may or may not create a boundary layer. See id.
Responding to this argument, Appellant directs our attention to
paragraph 28 of the Specification which states:
Forming the seal 12 may include a variety of process to
effectively interface the elastomer portions 52 and 54. In one
embodiment, each of the elastomer portions 52 and 54 are
extrusion molded separately and, subsequently compression
molded together to provide the body 50. Accordingly, the body
50 includes a homogeneous structure that includes an interface
between the elastomer portions that does not include auxiliary
shear stresses (e.g., friction) between the portions. In other
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
6
words, there is no boundary layer between the two materials.
Another embodiment includes vulcanizing the first elastomer
portion 52 and the second elastomer portion 54 to one another.
For instance, in one embodiment, after each of the elastomer
portions 52 and 54 are formed, they are cured in a vulcanization
process. Curing the seal 12 in the vulcanization process includes
exposing the elastomer portions 52 and 54 to high temperature,
high pressure, and catalysts (e.g., sulfur) to cross-link the
molecules of the elastomers 52 and 54. As a result, the seal 12
forms a homogeneous body 50 more resistant to chemical attack.
Other embodiments of forming the seal 12 include a variety of
processes. For example, one embodiment includes the use [of]
an adhesive to adhere the elastomer portions 52 and 54 to one
another. Further, certain embodiments include machining the
elastomers to the desired shape before or after coupling the
elastomers to one another. In addition, the above discussed
processes may be employed to couple (e.g., vulcanize) a plurality
of elastomers to one another to form the seal 12. For example,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more different elastomers may be
vulcanized to form the seal 12 with an increased operating range.
Spec. ¶ 28 (emphasis added).
We note that the independent claims do not require that the elastomer
portions (or the first elastomer portion and the body, in the case of claim 52)
be free of a boundary layer. Rather, as noted above, the independent claims
require elastomer portions that directly contact one another and that are
vulcanized to define vulcanized bonds with either other elastomer portions
or the body. Further, Appellant is correct that the embodiments described in
paragraph 29 of the Specification are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, in
the emphasized embodiment quoted supra, the Specification describes
elastomer portions that directly contact one another and are vulcanized.
Thus, one skilled in the art would understand that Appellant had possession
of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the instant application.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
7
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 33, 47,
and 52, and their respective dependent claims as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Rejection II3
Claims 33–36, 40, 42–46, 54, and 56
Appellant argues claims 33–36, 40, 42–46, 54, and 56 together. See
Appeal Br. 25. We select independent claim 33 as the representative claim,
and claims 33–36, 40, 42–46, 54, and 56 stand or fall with claim 33.
The Examiner finds that Potter discloses all of the limitations of claim
33 except for “vulcanized bonds with cross-links between the body, first and
second elastomer portions.” Final. Act. 10. The Examiner further finds that
“Cleveland discloses a body elastomer (e.g. 11) with 1st elastomer and 2nd
elastomer (e.g. 12) that are bonded together and vulcanized (e.g. page 1,
lines 40-65)” (id.) and that “Fauble teaches plural layers of different
materials that are elastomeric and/or plastic that are vulcanized and the
vulcanizing causes crosslink to form a unitary construction.” Id. at 11
(citing Fauble 6:18–21). Based on these findings, the Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious “to have the body, first and second
elastomer portions of Potter to be vulcanized together to define vulcanized
bonds with cross-links therebetween portions.” Id. at 10. The Examiner
reasons: “Cleveland teaches cross-link bonds between the elastomers
because this is what vulcanizing does. It is also noted that the vulcanized
bonds extend directly to the first and second interfaces since the teaching of

3 We note that Appellant’s arguments in response to this rejection are
repetitive. We address each argument the first time it is presented and, in the
interest of brevity, do not address the same argument again.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
8
Cleveland is used by Potter which has direct contact between interfaces.”
Id. at 11.
Appellant contends that “Cleveland fails to teach or suggest body,
first, and/or second elastomer portions that directly contact one another,
much less any vulcanized bonds with cross-links directly between body, first,
and/or second elastomer portions of a seal.” Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply
Br. 2–3. These facts are not contested. The rejection as articulated by the
Examiner relies upon Potter to teach body, first, and second elastomer
portions as noted supra. The rejection further relies upon Fauble to teach
that vulcanization necessarily results in the creation of cross-links as also
noted supra. This argument attacks the reference separately rather than
address their combined teachings. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Appellant further argues that “Cleveland merely discloses that the
rubber may be vulcanized or cured after bonding the rings together, which
teaches away as such bonding material would act to prevent any direct
contact and cross-linking directly between the materials of the rings.”
Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s argument is unconvincing
because “teaching away” requires that the reference “criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage” the use of other alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the portions of Cleveland cited by
Appellant does not appear to criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
creation of cross-links. We will not read into a reference a teaching away
from a proposed combination when no such language exists. See DyStar
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
9
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In addition, Appellant argues that “Fauble does not teach or suggest
vulcanization with cross-links, especially when using an intermediate
bonding material as taught by Cleveland.” Appeal Br. 18. However, as the
Examiner finds, Fauble discloses the creation of cross-links during
vulcanization. Fauble 6:18–21.
Appellant contends that Cleveland necessarily uses a bonding
material; and thus, cannot be modified to create cross-links. Appeal Br. 17–
18). However, Appellant provides no evidence is support of this contention.
Rather, as noted by Appellant (id.), Cleveland makes no mention of bonding
material. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is based on speculation about
Cleveland’s bonding process and is unconvincing. Moreover, vulcanization
is a
chemical process by which the physical properties of natural or
synthetic rubber are improved; finished rubber has higher tensile
strength and resistance to swelling and abrasion, and is elastic
over a greater range of temperatures. In its simplest form,
vulcanization is brought about by heating rubber with sulfur.
The process was discovered in 1839 by the U.S. inventor
Charles Goodyear, who also noted the important function of
certain additional substances in the process. Such a material,
called an accelerator, causes vulcanization to proceed more
rapidly or at lower temperatures. The reactions between rubber
and sulfur are not fully understood, but in the product, the sulfur
is not simply dissolved or dispersed in the rubber; it is chemically
combined, mostly in the form of cross-links, or bridges, between
the long-chain molecules.
Encyclopaedia Britannica.com,
http://www.britannica.com/technology/vulcanization (last accessed April 7,
2017). Given this understanding of the vulcanization process, one skilled in
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
10
the art would understand that vulcanization as disclosed by both Cleveland
and Fauble includes cross-links.
Appellant further contends that “Fauble has absolutely nothing to do
with seals and appears to be nonanalogous art.” Appeal Br. 18.
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.”
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Concerning the first test, Appellant argues that “Applicants’ field of
endeavor relates to seals in mineral extraction systems, such as subsea
mineral extraction systems, which are used to extract subterranean natural
resources, such as oil and gas” and that
the present invention is directed toward, among other things,
solving problems associated with sealing mineral extraction
components (e.g., tubing, wellheads, valves, etc.) in harsh
environments likely to include corrosive fluids, well bore fluids,
chemicals, extremely high temperatures, and extremely high
pressures associated with mineral (e.g., oil and gas) extraction
from a deep reservoir accessed subsea.
Appeal Br. 19–20.
However, as noted supra, in accordance with the Specification, the
field of endeavor is not so limited. Fauble states that:
The present invention relates to the field of tubing
manufacturing and in particular to the field of fuel and vapor
transmission tubes for internal combustion engines. It further
relates to laminated structures having flexibility, impact
resistance and hydrocarbon impermeability suited for use as a
fuel and/or vapor conducting tubing and to a process for making
the same.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
11
Fauble 1:7–13 (emphasis added). Fuel and vapor transmission tubes are
fluid systems. Thus, both Fauble and the instant invention are in the same
field of endeavor (i.e., fluid systems). Accordingly, Fauble qualifies as
analogous art under the first test outlined supra.
Appellant further contends that “the present invention is directed
toward, among other things, solving problems associated with sealing
mineral extraction components.” Appeal Br. 19–20. However, the fact that
the inventor was involved with one problem, doesn’t prevent the inventor
from being involved with another problem. Rather, as Appellant tacitly
admits in the quote supra, problems associated with sealing mineral
extraction components, is only one of the problems with which the inventor
was involved.
The Examiner determines that one of the problems with which the
inventor was concerned is vulcanization. See Ans. 6. The Examiner
explains that “Fauble is used as a teaching reference for what is old and well
known in the art, that is what happens to materials when they are vulcanized
(column 3, lines 1-3 of Fauble).” Id. Paragraph 28 of the Specification
discusses the vulcanization process. Thus, the Examiner is correct that
vulcanization is a problem with which the invention was concerned.
Accordingly, Fauble also qualifies as analogous art in accordance with the
second test discussed supra.
Noting that claim 33 requires “a first elastomer portion [that] extends
circumferentially along and is recessed within the first seal interface, and a
second elastomer portion [that] extends circumferentially along and is
recessed within the second seal interface,” Appellant argues that “the low
permeation barrier portions 160 of Potter are disposed at axially opposite
ends (not radially opposite sides) of a sealing member 112.” Appeal Br. 21
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
12
(citing Potter, Fig. 5) (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant
further argues that “the low permeation barrier layer 138 is not disposed
along any seal interface with the low permeation barrier portions 160.” Id.
Figs. 4 and 5; 4:14–18 (emphasis omitted).
Potter describes Figure 5 as “a cross-sectional view of the low
permeation sealing member in FIG. 4.” Potter 2:27–28. Potter’s barrier
portions 160 are disposed around a radius of an axis through the center of
the cross-section illustrated in Figure 5. Thus, Potter discloses barrier
portions that extend “circumferentially about a central axis of the fluid seal”
as required by claim 33. Appeal Br. 85. The Examiner identifies the
interface between the barrier portions 160 and the barrier layer 38 as
corresponding to the claimed interfaces. See Final Act. 7. Regarding these
interfaces, Potter states:
As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, sealing assembly 110 includes
low permeation sealing member 112 in accordance to another
embodiment of the present invention. Sealing member 112
includes an elongated body 130 having a first portion 132 and a
second or outer portion 134 radially integrally extending from
the first portion 132. The first portion 132 includes a contact
surface 136 to which a low permeation barrier layer 138 attaches.
The low permeation barrier layer 138 includes an outer
side 140 and an inner side 142 which partially covers the
elongated body 130. The low permeation barrier layer 138
further includes opposing first and second edges 144, 146 which
are spaced apart to define a slot 148. The low permeation barrier
layer partially covers the elongated body to allow the elongated
body 130 to expand through the slot 148 when hydrocarbon
molecules permeate therein. The low permeation barrier layer
attaches about at least 50% of the contact surface and preferably
between 75%–88% about the contact surface. The outer side of
the low permeation barrier layer is configured for contacting
hydrocarbons from the vessel to reduce permeation of the
hydrocarbons therefrom.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
13
As shown in FIG. 5, the low permeation sealing member
112 further has a plurality of low permeation barrier portions 160
attached to the outer side 140 of the low permeation barrier layer
138. . . . In operation, the low permeation barrier portions 160
are configured to engage with the surfaces of the tank wall 114
and the fuel delivery module cover 116 to further reduce
hydrocarbon micro-leaks.
Potter 3:52–4:18. Potter’s seal 110 includes a lower permeation sealing
member 112 which has a barrier layer 138 which contacts barrier portions
160. See id. Barrier portions 160 are described as further reducing
hydrocarbon micro-leaks. Id. Accordingly, we understand the combination
of barrier portions 160 and barrier layer 138 to prevent more micro-leaks
than barrier layer 138 alone. In order for barrier portions 160 and barrier
layer 138 to prevent more micro-leaks that barrier layer 130 alone, barrier
portions 160 must seal off more hydrocarbon, thus forming a sealing
interface between barrier layer 138 and barrier portions 160. Accordingly,
Appellant does not apprise us of error.
In addition, Appellant argues that “Cleveland merely discloses three
stacked layers of material (e.g., three-ply sheet) with layers arranged one
directly over another without any recessed elastomer portions.” Appeal Br.
22 (emphasis omitted). However, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which relies on Potter, not
Cleveland to meet the limitations pertaining to recessed portions. See Final
Act. 7. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Next, Appellant argues that “Fauble clearly discloses use of an
intermediate ‘primer or binder coating’ between the FKM and THV layers,
thereby preventing direct contact between these layers.” Appeal Br. 22
(citing Fauble 2:59–61). Again, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, as the rejection does not rely on
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
14
Fauble to teach a particular kind of vulcanization. Rather, Fauble is merely
relied upon to demonstrate that vulcanization results in cross-links as
discussed supra. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Appellant raises new arguments in the Reply Brief which are not
responsive to an argument raised in the Answer. See Reply Br. 2–5. For
example, Appellant argues for the first time that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Cleveland and
Fauble with the teachings of Potter, because Potter already discloses positive
interlocking (mechanical features) between the portions (e.g., 130, 138, and
160) of seal assembly 110.” Id. at 4 (citing Potter, Fig. 5).4 In accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2), lacking a showing of good cause, we do not
consider the arguments raised in the Reply Brief that are not responsive to an
argument raised in the Answer.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
33, and claims 34–36, 40, 42–46, 54, and 56, which fall therewith as
unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Claims 47, 48, 51, and 55
Appellant argues claims 47, 48, 51, and 55 together. See Appeal Br.
29. We select independent claim 47 as the representative claim, and claims
48, 51, and 55 stand or fall with claim 47.
Arguing the rejection of independent claim 47, Appellant essentially
repeats the same arguments contesting the rejection of claim 33. See Appeal

4 This argument is raised for all of the independent claims subject to
Rejection II (i.e., claims 33, 47, and 52). However, in the interest of brevity,
we do not repeat this response in the sections of our Decision pertaining to
this rejection of claims 47 and 52 infra.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
15
Br. 25–29. These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed
supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 47,
48, 51, and 55 as unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Claims 52 and 53
Appellant argues claims 52 and 53 together. See Appeal Br. 34.
Arguing the rejection of claims 52 and 53, Appellant essentially repeats the
same arguments contesting the rejection of claim 33. See id. at 29–34.
These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 52
and 53 as unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Rejection III5
Claims 33–37, 40, 42–46, and 56
Appellant argues claims 33–37, 40, 42–46, and 56 together. See
Appeal Br. 44. We select independent claim 33 as the representative claim,
and claims 34–37, 40, 42–46, and 56 stand or fall with claim 33.
The Examiner finds that Chisnell discloses all of the limitations of
claim 33 except for “vulcanized bonds with cross-links between the body,
first and second elastomer portions.” Final Act. 14. The Examiner further
finds that “Cleveland discloses a body elastomer (e.g. 11) with 1st elastomer
and 2nd elastomer (e.g. 12) that are bonded together and vulcanized” (id.
(citing Cleveland 1:40–65)) and “Fauble teaches plural layers of different
materials that are elastomeric and/or plastic that are vulcanized and the
vulcanizing causes crosslink to form a unitary construction.” Id. at 14–15
(citing Fauble 6:18–21). Based on these findings, the Examiner determines

5 See note 3.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
16
that “the vulcanizing in Cleveland teaches cross-link bonds between the
elastomers because this is what vulcanizing does. It is also noted that the
vulcanized bonds extend directly to the first and second interfaces since the
teaching of Cleveland is used by Chisnell.” Id. at 15.
Before addressing the Chisnell reference, Appellant essentially repeats
the same arguments pertaining to Cleveland and Fauble presented to contest
Rejection II. See Appeal Br. 34–38, 41–43. These arguments are
unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra.
Regarding Chisnell, Appellant contends that Chisnell’s “collar section
24 is not even an elastomer, and thus cannot read on the claimed body
elastomer portion of claim 33.” Appeal Br. 39 (citations omitted). In
support of this contention, Appellant argues that “the collar section 24 is
made of plastic (e.g., nylon), metal, or composite material, rather than an
elastomer.” Id. Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that
“Appellant has only generally claimed an elastomer, not any particular
elastomer. Thus, the nylon in Chisnell is considered to be the broadly
claimed elastomer in independent claims.” Ans. 17. In the Reply Brief,
Appellant argues that “nylon itself is not an elastomer, and there is
absolutely no teaching or suggestion to use an elastomer for the collar
section 24 of Chisnell.” Reply Br. 6.
Nylon is “any of numerous strong tough elastic synthetic polyamide
materials that are fashioned into fibers, filaments, bristles, or sheets and used
especially in textiles and plastics.” Merriam-webster.com,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nylon (last accessed April 11,
2017). An “elastomer” is “any of various elastic substances resembling
rubber.” Id. at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elastomer. By
definition nylon is elastic. See id. Further, the use of nylon to replace
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
17
rubber is well known, for example, in the manufacture of tires. See
Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon (last accessed April 11,
2017). Accordingly, “nylon” is an “elastomer,” in accordance with the
ordinary and customary meaning of that term. Thus, Appellant does not
apprise us of error.
In addition, Appellant contends that “Chisnell teaches away from an
elastomer material for the collar section 24, because Chisnell specifically
teaches an object of the invention to create a composite sleeve with a rigid
material (e.g., nylon, metal, or composite material) for the collar section 24
and a flexible or pliable material (e.g., rubber) for the seal portions 32.”
Appeal Br. 40. However, as discussed supra, nylon is an elastomer material,
and as noted by Appellant, Chisnell teaches the use of nylon for the collar
section 24. Thus, Chisnell does not teach away from the proposed
combination.
Next, Appellant contends that “Chisnell and Cleveland teach
contrastingly different intended purposes and principles of operation, which
would change if Chisnell and Cleveland were hypothetically combined as
suggested by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 41. In support of this contention,
Appellant argues that “Chisnell teaches a principle of operation of creating a
composite sleeve with a rigid material (e.g., nylon, metal, or composite
material) for the collar section 24 and a flexible or pliable material (e.g.,
rubber) for the seal portions 32, which are molded in place into the collar
section 24” and that “Cleveland teaches a principle of operation of creating a
ring with three stacked layers of material (e.g., three-ply sheet) with layers
arranged one directly over another without any recessed elastomer portions;
thus, requiring bonding between the layers” Id. (citations and emphasis
omitted).
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
18
We do not understand a “principle of operation” to be how a
component is manufactured. See in re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA
1959). Appellant does not explain how the proposed combination changes
how the modified component would operate or show that the proposed
modification would require substantial reconstruction and redesign. Thus,
Appellant does not apprise us of error.
As with respect to Rejection III, Appellant raises new arguments in
the Reply Brief which are not responsive to an argument raised in the
Answer. See Reply Br. 6–8. For example, Appellant argues for the first
time that “the Examiner has not provided any teaching or suggestion
regarding how a vulcanization process could apply to a nylon, much less
how any cross-links could form between a nylon collar section 24 and
rubber seal portions 32.” Id. at 6–7.6 As discussed supra, lacking a showing
of good cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the Reply Brief
which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim
33, and claims 34–37, 40, 42–46, and 56 which fall therewith as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.

6 This argument is raised for all of the independent claims subject to
Rejection III (i.e., claims 33, 47, and 52). However, in the interest of
brevity, we do not repeat this response in the sections of our Decision
pertaining to this rejection of claims 47 and 52 infra.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
19
Claims 47–49 and 51
Appellant argues claims 47–49 and 51 together. See Appeal Br. 49.
We select independent claim 47 as the representative claim, and claims 48,
49, and 51 stand or fall with claim 47.
Arguing the rejection of independent claim 47, Appellant essentially
repeats the same arguments contesting the rejection of claim 33. See Appeal
Br. 44–49. These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed
supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 47–
49 and 51 as unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Claim 52
Arguing the rejection of claim 52, Appellant essentially repeats the
same arguments contesting the rejection of claim 33. See Appeal Br. 49–54.
These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 52 as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Rejection IV
Noting that this rejection relies upon the Examiner’s taking of Official
Notice, Appellant argues that the “Examiner did not address [Appellant’s]
seasonable traversal of Official Notice, nor did the Examiner provide any
additional reference in support of the rejection.” Appeal Br. 56. Appellant
is correct. The Examiner does not identify any support for the Official
Notice taken on page 15 of the Final Action.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 37–39 as unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Knapp.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
20
Rejection V
The Examiner determines that “Chisnell, Cleveland and Fauble
discloses the claimed invention except that the durometers being greater than
90 shore A and less than 80 shore A.” Final Act. 16. The Examiner reasons
that “[d]iscovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art.” Id. Based on this reasoning the Examiner
concludes that the limitations set forth in claims 38 and 39 would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art. Id.
Appellant repeats some of the arguments presented in contesting
Rejection II. See Appeal Br. 57; Reply Br. 9. These arguments are not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Then, Appellant contends that
“the Examiner has taken Official Notice of facts outside of the record that
the Examiner apparently believes are capable of demonstration as being
‘well-known’ in the art.” Appeal Br. 58. However, the Examiner’s
reasoning in this rejection does not rely on Official Notice. Accordingly,
Appellant does not apprise us of error.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 38 and 39 as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Rejection VI
The Examiner determines that “Chisnell, Cleveland and Fauble
discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose a second end
cap at a second end of the body elastomer portion.” Final Act. 17. The
Examiner finds that “Keene teaches a seal having an elastomer body portion
(e.g. 10) having ends [sic] caps.” Id. Based on this finding, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious “to have the second end of
Chisnell to have an end cap as taught by Keene, to provide protection for the
elastomer body portion (e.g. function of end caps in Keene).” Id.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
21
Appellant repeats some of the arguments presented in contesting
Rejection II. See Appeal Br. 59–60. As discussed supra, these arguments
are unconvincing. Appellant further argues that “Keene fails to teach or
suggest the features missing from Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble, and thus
is not able to obviate the deficiencies of Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.”
Id. at 60. However, we find no features to be missing from or any
deficiencies in Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble. Thus, Appellant does not
apprise us of error.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 41 and 50 as
unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble, and Keene.
Rejection VII7
Claims 33–46, 54, and 56
Appellant argues that:
the annular seal of Keene could not possibly incorporate any
bonds, much less vulcanized bonds with cross-links, between the
body 10 and rings 28 and 30 of Keene, because Keene clearly
requires a wave pattern (i.e., without any bond) of the rings 28
and 30 within grooves 24 and 26 in the body 10 to store energy
for energizing the seal.
Appeal Br. 66 (emphasis and citations omitted).
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that “after the
wave pattern is formed by placing the rings 28 and 30 within the grooves
one can vulcanize the seal assembly of Keene by Cleveland to provide
retention of rings 28 and 30 to body 10.” Ans. 26. However, Keene states:
When rings 28 and 36 are installed and in contact with the inside
diameter [of the surface to be sealed] the circumferential
compression results in an axial wave pattern occurring in the
respective groove as well as some pushing of grooves 24 and 32
toward grooves 26 and 34 respectively. This wave deformation

7 See note 3.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
22
in the axial direction along the circumference puts an additional
axial force against rings 12 and 14 to cause their respective ends,
such as 16 and 18 to splay apart for better contact with the walls
that define the inner and outer surfaces to be sealed by the seal
assembly.
Keene 3:20–29. Accordingly, we understand the wave pattern to be created
after installation of seal. It is unclear how the rings could be vulcanized
after the seal is installed. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational
underpinning.
For this reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 33, and claims 34–46, 54, and 56, which depend therefrom as
unpatentable over Keene, Cleveland, and Fauble.
Claims 47–53 and 55
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 47 and 52, and their
respective dependent claims suffers from the same deficiency as the
rejection of claim 33. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 47–53 and 55 as unpatentable over Keene,
Cleveland, and Fauble for the same reason.
Rejection VIII
The Examiner determines that Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble “fail to
disclose that the vulcanized comprise at least one catalyst that is sulfur to
cross-link molecules of the body, first and second elastomer portions.” Final
Act. 21. The Examiner finds that “Watanabe teaches to have the elastomer
composition with sulfur as promoter for vulcanizer (see table 1).” Id. Based
on this finding, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
have the elastomer composition of Potter, Cleveland and Fauble to have
sulfur as taught by Watanabe, to promote vulcanizing.” Id.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
23
Appellant repeats some of the arguments presented in contesting
Rejection II. See Appeal Br. 80–81. As discussed supra, these arguments
are unconvincing. Appellant further argues that “Watanabe fails to teach or
suggest the features missing from Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble, and thus is
not able to obviate the deficiencies of Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble.” Id. at
81. However, we find no features to be missing from or any deficiencies in
Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 57
and 58 as unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.
Rejection IX
The Examiner determines that Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble “fail to
disclose that the vulcanized comprise at least one catalyst that is sulfur to
cross-link molecules of the body, first and second elastomer portions.” Final
Act. 21. The Examiner finds that “Watanabe teaches to have the elastomer
composition with sulfur as promoter for vulcanizer (see table 1).” Id. Based
on this finding, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
have the elastomer composition of Chisnell, Cleveland and Fauble to have
sulfur as taught by Watanabe, to promote vulcanizing.” Id.
Appellant repeats some of the arguments presented in contesting
Rejection II. See Appeal Br. 81–82. As discussed supra, these arguments
are unconvincing. Appellant further argues that “Watanabe fails to teach or
suggest the features missing from Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble, and thus
is not able to obviate the deficiencies of Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble.”
Id. at 82. However, we find no features to be missing from or any
deficiencies in Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble. Thus, Appellant does not
apprise us of error.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
24
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 57
and 58 as unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.
Rejection X
The rejection of claims 57 and 58 as unpatentable over Keene,
Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe suffers from the same deficiencies as the
rejection of claim 33, from which claims 57 and 58 depend. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 57 and 58 as
unpatentable over Keene, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33–58 as failing to comply with
the written description requirement is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33–36, 40, 42–48, and 51–56 as
unpatentable over Potter, Cleveland, and Fauble is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33–37, 40, 42–49, 51, 52, and 56
as unpatentable over Chisnell, Cleveland, and Fauble is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 37–39 as unpatentable over Potter,
Cleveland, and Knapp is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 39 as unpatentable over
Chisnell, Cleveland, & Fauble is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 41 and 50 as unpatentable over
Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble, and Keene is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33–56 as unpatentable over
Keene, Cleveland, and Fauble is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57 and 58 as unpatentable over
Potter, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2015-006214
Application 13/493,984
25
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57 and 58 as unpatentable over
Chisnell, Cleveland, Fauble and Watanabe is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57 and 58 as unpatentable over
Keene, Cleveland, Fauble, and Watanabe is REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED