Ex Parte Le et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201612117619 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 12/117,619 05/08/2008 Lynn B. Le 10-14198-00 9390 105639 7590 12/27/2016 Duane Morris LLP (10/11) Seagate IP Docketing 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194 EXAMINER PRATHER, GREGORY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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 LYNN B. LE and ALAN L. GRANTZ Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/1175 6191 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lynn B. Le and Alan L. Grantz (Appellants) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10 and 21—44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ichiyama (US 2006/0039636 Al, pub. Feb. 23, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Seagate Technology LLC. Br. 3. Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1,21,31, and 38 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A motor comprising: a first fluid sealing system comprising a first air-fluid interface connected to a first axial end of a bearing, wherein: the bearing is defined between a stationary component and a rotatable component, the rotatable component comprises a hub, the stationary component comprises a shaft, and the shaft is stationary with respect to a hard drive base plate; and a second fluid sealing system comprising a second air- fluid interface connected to a second axial end of the bearing, wherein: the first fluid sealing system comprises a firstfolded fluid channel and the second fluid sealing system comprises a second folded fluid channel, the first and the second folded fluid channels defined by facing surfaces of the stationary component and the rotatable component, the first fluid sealing system forms an active pumping seal for pumping fluid when the stationary component and the rotatable component are relatively rotating, the first folded fluid channel occupies a portion of the same axial space as the bearing, and is positioned radially outboard of the bearing. ANALYSIS Anticipation of Claims 1—10 and 21—44 by Ichiyama Claims 1—10 Appellants argue claims 1—10 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as anticipated by Ichiyama. Appeal Br. 17—23; see also Reply Br. 5—10. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and 2 Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Ichiyama anticipates claim 1 by teaching a motor having, inter alia, a first fluid sealing system at a first axial end of a bearing that “forms an active pumping seal for pumping fluid when the stationary component and the rotatable component are relatively rotating,” and includes a “first folded fluid channel [that] occupies a portion of the same axial space as the bearing, and is positioned radially outboard of the bearing.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ichiyama, Figs. 3 and 4). In taking issue with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Final Office Action, Appellants first contend that “because Ichiyama discloses a tapered seal without grooves or any other mechanism for pumping, [that] Ichiyama does not disclose, at a minimum, ‘(the) active pumping seal for pumping fluid when the stationery component and the rotatable component are relatively rotating’ of Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 19. (emphasis added). However, Appellants appear to misread Ichiyama, which discloses “a fluid dynamic bearing motor attached at both shaft ends (a fixed shaft type fluid dynamic bearing motor) which uses a novel lubricant sealing structure as an alternative to conventional tapered seals.'1'’ See Ichiyama, 12. (emphasis added). The Examiner correctly points out that “[e]ven though Ichiyama does not use [Appellants’] choice of words, ‘active pumping seal,’ Ichiyama does indeed disclose an active pumping seal. Paragraph [0123] of Ichiyama is one of many paragraphs explicitly disclosing pumping contributes to achieving a fluid seal.”2 Ans. 12. 2 The Examiner also explains that Paragraphs ^fl[ 67 and—68 “of Ichiyama specifically refer[]s to the device as pumping lubricant.” Ans. 13. 3 Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 Furthermore, Appellants’ contention is unavailing as it not even commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not recite a motor having an active pumping seal that includes grooves.3 Appeal Br. 31, Claims App. Thus, the argument also fails from the outset because ... it is “not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). See Ans. 12—13. As we are instructed by our reviewing court, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the [Specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In reZletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Appellants also contend that Ichiyama does not disclose a first fluid sealing system where “‘the first folded fluid channel [occupies] a portion of the same axial space as the bearing’ of Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellants expand this argument by contending that the Examiner is “incorrectly reading features of [Appellants’] first fluid sealing system such as ‘the first folded fluid channel occupies a portion of the same axial space as the bearing’ and ‘[the first folded fluid channel] is positioned radially outboard of the bearing’ onto the lubricant-recirculating system of Ichiyama.” Reply Br. 10. However, we agree with the Examiner that the axial extending channel portion of the first folded fluid channel [of Ishiyama] does indeed occupy a portion of the same axial space as the bearing and furthermore, the first folded fluid channel of Ichiyama is indeed positioned radially outboard of the bearing (bearing defined as being between rotatable component 3 As the Examiner also points out, “the claim [even] when read in light of the explicit definition of folded fluid channel in the specification does not require grooves on an axial channel for pumping.” Ans. 12 (citing 113 of the Specification). 4 Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 stationary component (11,16, 14) and a rotatable component (13, 12) as required earlier in claim 1). Ans. 14—15 (citing to an annotated version of Fig. 4(b) of Ichiyama). The Examiner continues by explaining that “Ichiyama clearly discloses the first and second fluid channels as being in combination with each other (lubricant can travel between the two), and the drawings show the fluid channels as sharing axial space with the bearing.” Id. at 18—19. We agree. For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings and agree that Ichiyama anticipates claims 1—10. Claims 21—30 Appellants argue claims 21—30 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as anticipated by Ichiyama. Appeal Br. 23—25; see also Reply Br. 10—11. We select claim 21 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In addition to arguing that claim 21 should be allowable for the reasons we have not found persuasive with respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that claim 21 is not anticipated by Ichiyama because of reciting that “the second fluid sealing system comprises a second folded fluid channel,” referring to an annotated version of figure 5 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 23—24. However we agree with the Examiner that Figure 4 of Ichiyama discloses “a second fluid sealing system comprising a second fluid channel.” See Ans. 15—16. For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings and agree that Ichiyama anticipates claims 21—30. 5 Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 Claims 31—37 Appellants argue claims 31—37 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as anticipated by Ichiyama. Appeal Br. 26—27; see also Reply Br. 11—12. We select claim 31 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 31. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In addition to arguing that claim 31 should be allowable for the reasons we have not found persuasive with respect to claims 1 and 21, Appellants contend that claim 31 is not anticipated “[bjecause Ichiyama discloses an adjoining axial channel that need not be configured for conveying fluid, Ichiyama does not disclose, at a minimum, the first fluid channel in combination with the second fluid channel of Claim 31.” Appeal Br. 26. However we agree with the Examiner that claim 31 does not specify there is fluid in the first axially extending channel portion during rotation of the device and so the fact that there is fluid in the first axially extending channel portion (le) [of Ichiyama] while it is at rest is sufficient for it to be considered an axially extending channel portion. Ans. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings and agree that Ichiyama anticipates claims 31—37. Claims 38—44 Appellants argue claims 38-44 together in contesting the rejection of these claims as anticipated by Ichiyama. Appeal Br. 27—28; see also Reply Br. 12. We select claim 38 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 38. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 6 Appeal 2014-007481 Application 12/117,619 In addition to arguing that claim 3 8 should be allowable for the reasons we have not found persuasive with respect to claims 1,21, and 31, Appellants contend that claim 38 is not anticipated because a “PHOSITA would further understand ‘folded’ to relate to the manner in which both the first and second folded fluid channels share axial space with the bearing.” Appeal Br. 27. While pointing out that the Specification does not disclose that the “first and second folded fluid channels [are required] to share axial space with the bearing,” the Examiner also observes that “Ichiyama clearly discloses the first and second fluid channels as being in combination with each other (lubricant can travel between the two), and the drawings show the fluid channels as sharing axial space with the bearing.” Ans. 18—19 (citing annotated Fig. 4(b). We agree. For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings and agree that Ichiyama anticipates claims 3 8 44. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation