Ex Parte Kovacik et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

15294923 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
15/294,923
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/17/2016 Ronnie K. Kovacik
05/15/2019
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1213-95205 1960
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 CUMAR,NATHAN
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONNIE K. KOVACIK, KEVIN DUFFY,
BRADY WALKER, and ANTONIO F. ARTILES
Appeal2018-008586 1
Application 15/294,923 2
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-15 and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed May 22,
2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug 27, 2018), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 27, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Dec. 27, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes embodiments related "to a sealing system
for an engine having an axial centerline." Spec. ,r 7.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A sealing system for an engine having an axial
centerline, comprising:
a stationary carbon segment; and
a seal plate that rotates when the engine is operated,
wherein the seal plate includes an end face that is opposed
to an interface between the carbon segment and the seal plate,
wherein the end face includes a plurality of grooves that
convey a liquid cooling fluid, and
wherein each of the grooves starts at a respective first
circumferential location of the end face at an inner diameter of
the end face and ends at a respective second circumferential
location of the end face at an outer diameter of the end face, the
first and second circumferential locations being different
circumferential locations.
Appeal Br. 14.
2
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 10-11, 15, 3 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ullah4 in view ofRadke. 5
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ullah in view of Radke and Huber. 6
3. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ullah in view of Radke and Rahman. 7
4. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ullah in view of Radke and Parmar. 8
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 17, 18
Appellants group claims 1---6, 10, and 11 together. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants group claims 17 and 18 together. Id. at 11. With respect to these
groups, Appellants present and rely on arguments made with respect to
claim 1. Id. at 8-11. As discussed below, Appellants' arguments do not
persuade us of error in the rejection with respect to these claims.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ullah discloses a
sealing system as claimed, including a stationary carbon element, except that
3 Although the Examiner's lists claim 16 in the heading for this rejection,
that claim has been cancelled (see Appeal Br. 3) and the body of the
rejection makes clear that the Examiner intended to include claim 15 isntead.
See Final Act. 3, 6.
4 Ullah, US 5,639,096, iss. June 17, 1997.
5 Radke, US 3,124,502, iss. Mar. 10, 1964.
6 Huber et al., US 3,917,288, iss. Nov. 4, 1975.
7 Rahman et al., US 5,795,074, iss. Aug. 18, 1998.
8 Parmar, US 5,135,235, iss. Aug. 4, 1992.
3
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
Ullah "is silent about [the] 'segment' of stationary carbon." Final Act. 3--4.
However, the Examiner relies on Radke to show that it would have been
obvious to use a segment of stationary carbon as claimed. Id. at 4. More
particularly with respect to Ullah, the Examiner finds that Ullah discloses
grooves that start and end at different circumferential locations because
the location where the groove 40 on the end face of 34 starts at
the inner diameter of 34 defines the first location, and the
location where the groove 40 on the end face of 34 ends at the
outer diameter of 34 defines the second location; the first and the
second circumferential locations being different circumferential
locations on the end face of 34; figs 3-4, and as shown below in
the annotated version of fig 4 of Ullah.
Id. at 3.
Appellants argue that Ullah discloses grooves that start and end at the
same circumferential location and thus the claim language does not read on
Ullah's grooves. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants assert:
Id.
As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 of Ullah ... , the ends of each of the
radial grooves 40 are at the same circumferential location of the
rotor 30/flange 34. For example, in FIG. 3 of Ullah the groove
that is specifically labelled (sic) via reference character 40 is
shown at the 1 o'clock position in terms of both the alleged start
at the inner diameter of the end face and the alleged end at the
outer diameter of the end face.
We agree with the Examiner that the starting and ending locations for
Ullah's grooves may be considered to be different circumferential locations
as required by the claim. We determine the scope of the claims by giving
claims "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification" and "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
4
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We have reviewed the Specification and find
that the Specification uses the term circumference according to its plain and
ordinary meaning, which is the perimeter of a circle. See, e.g. Spec. ,r 7
( describing fins that consume "approximately fifty degrees of the
circumference of the end face") ,r 24 ( describing rotor blades as arranged
"circumferentially around and connected to" rotor disks); ,r 32 ( describing
"cooling over the entire circumference" of a plate rather than "at discrete,
circumferential locations" proximate to radial holes); see also Merriam-
Webster's Dictionary, Circumference Definition, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/circumference (last visited May 2, 2019). Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the grooves start
at a point on the perimeter of a circle and end on a different point of a
perimeter of a circle, but the claim does not require that these circles are the
same. Thus, the groove may start at the same radial position on one circle
and end at the same radial position, e.g. the 1 o'clock position, of another
circle and still satisfy the claim requirements. Accordingly, we agree with
the Examiner that Ullah' s grooves 40, which start at the perimeter of one
circle and end at the perimeter of a different circle may be considered to start
and end at different circumferential locations. In contrast, Appellants
interpretation of the claim is unduly narrow as it requires that the start and
end points of the grooves are at different radial positions, which is not
required by the claim language.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims
2---6, 10, 11, 1 7, and 18 for the same reasons.
5
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 requires that the grooves have a non-constant
groove width to pitch ratio that increases from the inner diameter to the outer
diameter of the end face. Appeal Br. 14. We are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that the Examiner erred in finding that Ullah discloses an
increasing groove width to pitch ratio as claimed. The Examiner finds that
in Ullah, "each groove 40 has a width and a pitch between two grooves 40,
and the pitch varies from the inner diameter to the outer diameter of the end
face, and hence the groove width to pitch ratio increases from the inner
diameter ... towards the outer diameter." Ans. 6. However, the fact that the
pitch varies does not establish that the ratio of width to pitch increases.
Rather, we agree with Appellants that
FIGS. 3-4 of Ullah illustrate the width of the grooves 40 are
constant while the pitch increases as the grooves 40 extend to an
outer diameter of the element 30. Thus, a ratio of the constant
groove width to the increasing pitch (width/pitch) decreases as
the groove extends to the outer diameter of the element 30 since
the denominator (the pitch) continues to increase while the
numerator (the width) stays the same.
Reply Br. 3.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 19
Claim 19 also requires that the groove width to pitch ratio increases
form the inner diameter to the outer diameter of the end face. Appeal Br. 16.
For the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 19.
6
Appeal2018-008586
Application 15/294,923
Rejection 2--4
With respect to these rejections, Appellants rely on their arguments
presented with respect to the independent claims. As discussed above, we
are not persuaded by those arguments. Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed, we also sustain the rejections of claims 8, 9, 12-14, and 20.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, 18, and 20. We
REVERSE the rejection of claims 7 and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7