Ex Parte McLeod

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 22, 2009

09562379 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER R. MCLEOD
____________

Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 April 23, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher R. McLeod (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention is drawn towards a mechanical seal for a
shaft 40 including a body section 44 having a hole 68 therethrough for
receiving the shaft, a sleeve 58 having a lip 60 disposed about the shaft, a
ring 56 movably disposed about the shaft 40 between a body section surface
72 and the lip 60, and a plurality of sealing surfaces 80 formed on opposite
sides of the ring and on corresponding portions of the lip 60 and the body
section surface 72. Specification 12, ll. 5-20 and fig. 5. A polymeric
coating 82, such as PEEK2, is applied to at least one of the sealing surfaces
80. Specification 13, ll. 5-12 and fig. 6.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. A sealing apparatus for a shaft comprising:

a body having a hole extending through a section of the
body;

a shaft movably disposed through the hole;

a sleeve having a lip disposed about the shaft;

2 PEEK is a thermoplastic polymer having a crystalline structure with a
glass transition temperature of about 150 oC and a melting temperature of
about 390 oC. See U.S. Patent No. 5,454,693, issued Oct. 3, 1995, col. 7, ll.
27-30.
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
3

a ring movably disposed about the shaft between the
section and the lip, the ring being movable relative to the
section and the lip;

a spring disposed at least partially over the sleeve on an
opposite side of the lip from the ring, the spring acting
between the lip and a spring retainer coupled to the shaft;

a plurality of sealing wear surfaces to provide sliding
wear surfaces during rotation of the shaft, the plurality of
sealing wear surfaces being on the ring and on at least
one of the corresponding portions of the lip and the
section; and

a polymeric coating on at least one of the sealing wear
surfaces.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Wilkinson US 3,244,425 Apr. 5, 1966
Novosad3 US 3,948,533 Apr. 6, 1976
Novosad4 US 4,779,876 Oct. 25, 1988
Ballard US 5,409,240 Apr. 25, 1995
Kennedy US 6,012,900 Jan. 11, 2000

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 19, and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Ballard and
further in view of Novosad ‘533.

3 Hereafter Novosad ‘533.
4 Hereafter Novosad ‘876.
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
4
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Ballard and further in
view of Novosad ‘533 and Kennedy.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Ballard and further in view of
Novosad ‘533 and Novosad ‘876.

THE ISSUE
Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Wilkinson discloses (1) a ring movable relative to both the
body section and the lip (as required by claim 1); (2) a wear surface formed
on the ring and corresponding contact portions of the lip (as required by
claim 12); and (3) a wear surface formed between the ring and the housing
(as required by claim 14)?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Wilkinson discloses a rotary mechanical seal including a rotating shaft
1 mounted within a housing 2 (body having a hole extending through
a section of the body) and a seal arrangement for prohibiting the
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
5
escape of fluid surrounding the rotating shaft. Wilkinson, col. 2, ll.
39-41 and fig. 1.
2. The sealing arrangement includes a stationary seal ring 3, a rotating
seal ring 4 that rotates with shaft 1, a first sleeve 17 for holding
axially acting springs 5 and which is secured to the shaft 1 by screws
18, and a second sleeve 22 that is secured to the shaft 1 by screws 23.
Wilkinson, col. 2, ll. 43-46; col. 3, ll. 57-58 and 63-65; and fig. 1.
3. The carrier 12 is provided with pins 26 which engage recesses 27 in
the rotating seal ring 4. Wilkinson, col. 3, ll. 67-70 and fig. 1.
4. The sleeve 22, which is secured to the shaft 1 by screws 23, engages
the carrier 12. Wilkinson, col. 3, ll. 63-65 and fig. 1.
5. Wilkinson further discloses that the rotating seal ring 4 is split into
two or more arcuate sections. Wilkinson, col. 2, ll. 52-53.
6. The axial force of the spring 5, which is transmitted from the carrier
12 to the rotating seal ring 4 through the O-ring 16, axially contracts
and radially expands the O-ring 16, thereby increasing the radial force
of the O-ring which squeezes the sections of the rotating seal ring 4
together. Wilkinson, col. 3, ll. 31-34 and 37-40.
7. The rotating seal ring 4 is urged by springs 5 against the stationary
seal ring 3 to form a fluid-tight seal. Wilkinson, col. 2, ll. 46-50.
8. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “wear” is to “cause to
deteriorate by use.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
1338 (Tenth Ed. 1997).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
6
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection all words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).

OPINION
Claims 1-11
As noted above, Wilkinson discloses a rotary mechanical seal between
a shaft 1 and a housing 2 including a stationary seal ring 3, a rotating seal
ring 4 that rotates with shaft 1, a first sleeve 17 for holding axially acting
springs 5 and which is secured to the shaft 1 by screws 18, and a second
sleeve 22 that is secured to the shaft 1 by screws 23 (FF 1 and 2).
Independent claim 1 requires the limitation of a “sleeve having a lip
disposed about the shaft.” The Examiner has identified the claimed
limitation as the carrier 12 and the sleeve 22. Ans. 3. According to the
Examiner the claimed “lip” structure is formed by the shoulder 15 of carrier
12 where O-ring 16 is inserted. Id. Furthermore, the Examiner contends
that because the rotating seal ring 4 is rotating relative to the stationary seal
ring 3 and is also movable by springs 5, the rotating seal ring 4 is “movable
relative to the section and the lip,” as required by independent claim 1. Id.
However, as noted above, the carrier 12 is provided with pins 26
which engage recesses 27 in the rotating seal ring 4 (FF 3). Furthermore, the
sleeve 22, which is secured to the shaft 1 by screws 23, engages the carrier
12 (FF 4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that
when the shaft 1 rotates, the rotational motion is transmitted from sleeve 22
to carrier 12 and then to rotating seal ring 4 via pins 26. Hence, the carrier
12 with its shoulder 15 (lip) and the rotating seal ring 4 rotate together. In
conclusion, we agree with the Appellant that the rotating seal ring 4 is not
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
7
movable relative to the “lip” (shoulder 15), as required by independent claim
1. See Reply Br. 6.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the rotating seal ring 4 is
movable relative to the lip (shoulder 15) of the carrier 12, as the Examiner
suggests, the seal arrangement of Wilkinson would not function as intended.
Specifically, Wilkinson discloses that the rotating seal ring 4 is split into two
or more arcuate sections (FF 5). The axial force of the spring 5, which is
transmitted from the carrier 12 to the rotating seal ring 4 through the O-ring
16, axially contracts and radially expands the O-ring 16, thereby increasing
the radial force of the O-ring which squeezes the sections of the rotating seal
ring 4 together (FF 6). Therefore, if the rotating seal ring 4 were movable
relative to the lip (shoulder 15) of the carrier 12, as the Examiner suggests,
then the radial force of the O-ring that squeezes the sections of the rotating
seal ring 4 together would decrease, thereby loosening the sections of the
rotating seal ring 4 and hence reducing its sealing capability with stationary
seal ring 3.
Inasmuch as we found that Wilkinson does not disclose a ring
movable relative to both the body section and the lip as required by
independent claim 1, Wilkinson does not disclose all of the elements of
independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of
Ballard and Novosad ‘533 that would make up for the deficiency of
Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2-4, 7-9, and 11, which depend from claim 1, cannot be sustained.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent
claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent
therefrom is nonobvious).
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
8
With respect to claim 5, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner
does not rely on the teachings Kennedy that would make up for the
deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 5 likewise cannot be sustained.
Finally, with respect to claims 6 and 10, which depend from claim 1,
the Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Novosad ‘876 that would
make up for the deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 6 and 10 is also reversed.

Claims 12 and 13
Claim 12 requires a “wear surface” between the ring and the lip. The
Examiner takes the position that because the carrier 12 moves axially
relative to the rotating seal ring 4 the surface of the lip (shoulder 15)
contacting O-ring 16 forms a “wear surface,” as required by claim 12. Ans.
6. The Appellants’ Specification does not expressly define the term “wear”
or otherwise indicate that this term is used in a manner other than its
ordinary and customary meaning. Accordingly, we construe this term in
accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning. An ordinary and
customary meaning of the term “wear” is to “cause to deteriorate by use”
(FF 8). However, as shown supra, because the carrier 12 with its shoulder
15 (lip) and the rotating seal ring 4 rotate together, the rotating seal ring 4 is
not movable relative to the lip (shoulder 15) of the carrier 12. Since no
relative motion exists between contact surface of the lip (shoulder 15) of the
carrier 12 and the rotating seal ring 4 the contacting surface cannot
deteriorate due to use, hence cannot form a “wear surface,” as required by
claim 12. In conclusion, we agree with the Appellant that the contact
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
9
surface between the rotating seal ring 4 and the lip (shoulder 15) of the
carrier 12 does not constitute a “wear surface.” See Reply Br. 6.
Inasmuch as we found that Wilkinson does not disclose a wear surface
between the ring and the lip as required by independent claim 12, Wilkinson
does not disclose all of the elements of claim 12. The Examiner does not
rely on the teachings of Ballard and Novosad ‘533 that would make up for
the deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 12 cannot be sustained.
With respect to claim 13, which depends from claim 12, the Examiner
does not rely on the teachings of Kennedy that would make up for the
deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 13 likewise cannot be sustained.

Claims 14-22
Independent claim 14 requires a “wear surface” between the rotatable
ring and the housing. The Examiner takes the position that Wilkinson
discloses a “wear surface” between housing 2 and stationary seal ring 3
(referenced as 6 in Figure 1 of Wilkinson). Ans. 6. However, as noted by
the Appellant, “[s]eal member 3 is a stationary seal face member ‘secured in
the housing 2.’” Reply Br. 7. Furthermore, as shown supra, the rotating
seal ring 4 is urged against the stationary seal ring 3 to form a fluid-tight seal
(FF 7). Hence, because the stationary seal ring 3 is not movable relative to
housing 2, we agree with the Appellant that stationary seal ring 3 “does not
create a wear surface as asserted by the Examiner.” Reply Br. 7.
Inasmuch as we found that Wilkinson does not disclose a wear surface
between the rotatable ring and the housing as required by independent claim
14, Wilkinson does not disclose all of the elements of claim 14. The
Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
10
Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Ballard and Novosad ‘533 that
would make up for the deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 and claims 19, 20, 21, and 22, which
depend from claim 14, cannot be sustained.
With respect to claims 15-18, which depend from claim 14, the
Examiner does not rely on the teachings Kennedy that would make up for
the deficiency of Wilkinson as discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 15-18 likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that Wilkinson discloses (1) a ring movable relative to both the
body section and the lip (as required by claim 1); (2) a wear surface formed
on the ring and corresponding contact portions of the lip (as required by
claim 12); and (3) a wear surface formed between the rotatable ring and the
housing.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-0167
Application 09/562,379
11

LV:

SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS
14910 AIRLINE ROAD
ROSHARON, TX 77583