Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2013

11262313 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2013)

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.
11/262,313 10/28/2005 Jonathan L. Miller 67097-530; ID-1098-US 7705
54549 7590 06/19/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LEE, GILBERT Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2013 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 JONATHAN L. MILLER and
MICHAEL GEORGE HILLDOERFER
____________________

Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, 16-18, 20-22, and 25-29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine mechanical face seal
housing comprising:
an annular seal-receiving section defining a
center axis, the annular seal-receiving section
including an annular flange that extends in a
radially outward direction toward a free end
relative to the center axis;
a force transfer section that extends axially
from the annular seal-receiving section;
a contact section axially spaced from the
seal-receiving section for receiving a bias force
and transferring the bias force to the force transfer
section; and
an annular carbon seal mounted in the
annular seal-receiving section facing away from
the contact section.

Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

3
REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brauer (US 2003/0184022 A1; pub. Oct. 2, 2003)
and Dennison (US 2,990,202; iss. Jun. 27, 1961);
2. Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pope (US 5,284,347; iss. Feb. 8, 1994) and
Dennison;
3. Claims 5, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brauer, Dennison, and Frank (US
4,502,856; iss. Mar. 5, 1985);
4. Claims 5, 11-14, 16-18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pope, Dennison, and Frank;
5. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pope, Dennison, Frank, and Brauer;
6. Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brauer, Dennison, Frank, and Williams (US 5,498,139;
iss. Mar. 12, 1996); and
7. Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pope, Dennison, Frank, and Williams.

1 The Examiner lists claim 20 as rejected (Ans. 15) and Appellants list claim
20 as being on appeal without further argument (App. Br. 2). However, as
indicated on pages 6 and 8 of Appellants’ response filed April 2, 2010, claim
20 appears to have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

4
OPINION
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, and 21 – Brauer/Dennison
The Examiner finds that Brauer discloses each of the features recited
in claim 1 except the annular seal being made of carbon. Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner finds that Dennison discloses a carbon face seal and reasons that it
would have been obvious to include a carbon seal in Brauer in order to
provide a seal with high wear resistance and lubricating properties. Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that the portion of Brauer considered the force
transfer section by the Examiner is a solid non-moveable piece and,
therefore, cannot transfer force from one thing to another. App. Br. 6.
Appellants contend that the claimed force transfer section requires
movement. Id; Reply Br. 2-3. This contention is not consistent with the
scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 simply requires that the force transfer section receives a bias
force from the contact section (i.e., a force transferred from the contact
section to the force transfer section). As explained by the Examiner, Brauer
includes a force transfer section (labeled as Y by the Examiner) and a
contact section 86. Ans. 4. The contact section 86 extends from and is
supported by the force transfer section Y. See Brauer, fig. 1 and Ans. 4.
Although the force transfer section Y may not be moveable, when a force is
applied to the contact section 86 it is also applied (i.e., transferred) to the
force transfer section Y because the force transfer section Y supports the
contact section 86.
Appellants argue that “[a] force receiving part is not a force transfer
part.” Reply Br. 3. Again, the claim has no such requirement. We do not
see any limitation in claim 1 that precludes the interpretation of the force
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

5
transfer section being a member that receives a transferred force. Moreover,
the force transfer section Y ultimately does transfer the force received from
the contact section 86 to the structure supporting the force transfer section Y
(i.e., structure to the left of the force transfer section Y in Figure 1 of
Brauer).
Appellants further contend that because the annular seal 120 in Brauer
does not rotate relative to the seal land in Brauer, there is no reason to use a
high wear and lubricious seal like the one found in Dennison. App. Br. 6.
This argument is not persuasive because although the seal 120 may not
rotate relative to the seal land in Brauer, there is still relative displacement
between the seal 120 and the face seal ring 60. See Brauer, paras. [0025]
and [0031].
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-4, 6, 10, and 21 depend from
claim 1 and are not argued separately. See App. Br. 5-6. These claims fall
with claim 1.

Claims 5, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, and 29 – Brauer, Dennison, and Frank
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 11 is independent and includes
features similar to claim 1. Claims 12-14, 16, 17, 22, and 29 depend from
claim 11. Appellants rely on the arguments presented regarding claim 1 and
additionally explain that the wear features recited in the claims would not
have been obvious in view of Frank because the annular seal 120 does not
rotate relative to the seal land in Brauer, similar to the arguments presented
regarding claim 1. App. Br. 8. These arguments are not persuasive as
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

6
explained above. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 11-14, 16, 17,
22, and 29.

Claims 25-28 – Brauer, Dennison, Frank, and Williams
Claim 25 depends from claim 5 and claim 26 depends from claim 11.
Claims 25 and 26 each further define the wear resistant coatings recited in
claims 5 and 11. Again, Appellants argue that the further modification in
view of Williams would not have been obvious because the annular seal 120
does not rotate relative to the seal land in Brauer. App. Br. 9. This
argument is not convincing as explained above. Appellants further allege
that the rejection must be based on impermissible hindsight because the only
teaching of the claimed hardness is found in Appellants’ disclosure. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Williams discloses making the coating a
hardness that is greater than that of the seal ring and explains that Brauer
would be modified accordingly in order to improve wear characteristics.
Ans. 17. Appellants’ general allegation of hindsight, with nothing more,
does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Claim 27 depends from claim 1 and claim 28 depends from claim 27.
Claim 27 recites that the force transfer section includes a hard coating and
claim 28 further defines the hard coating as being located on the radially
inner surface of the force transfer section. Appellants contend that Frank
does not teach the force transfer section having a hard coating. App. Br. 9.
This argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because the Examiner
does not rely on Frank for such a teaching. The Examiner simply relies on
Frank as generally disclosing the addition of a wear-resistant layer (e.g., on
either the contact portion of a spring or the contact portion of the member
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

7
abutting the spring). Ans. 18. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error
and we sustain the rejection of claims 27 and 28.

Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 21 – Pope/Dennison
The Examiner finds that Pope discloses each of the features recited in
claim 1 except the annular seal being made of carbon. Ans. 7. The
Examiner finds that Dennison discloses a carbon face seal and reasons that it
would have been obvious to include a carbon seal in Pope in order to
provide a seal with high wear resistance and lubricating properties. Id.
Similar to the arguments presented regarding the rejection based on
the combination of Bauer and Dennison, Appellants contend that the portion
of Pope considered the force transfer section by the Examiner is a solid non-
moveable piece and, therefore, cannot transfer force from one thing to
another. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that the claimed force transfer
section requires movement. Id. As explained above, this contention is not
consistent with the scope of claim 1.
As explained by the Examiner, Pope includes a force transfer section
(labeled as K by the Examiner) and a contact section 78. Ans. 6-7. The
contact section 78 extends from and is supported by the force transfer
section K. See Pope, fig. 2 and Ans. 6. Although the force transfer section
K may not be moveable, when a force is applied to the contact section 78 it
is also applied (i.e., transferred) to the force transfer section K because the
force transfer section K supports the contact section 78. We do not see any
limitation in claim 1 that precludes the interpretation of the force transfer
section being a member that receives a transferred force. Moreover, the
force transfer section K ultimately does transfer the force received from the
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

8
contact section 78 to the structure supporting the force transfer section K
(i.e., structure to the left of the force transfer section K in Figure 2 of Pope).
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner has improperly
considered the elements labeled L and 54 by the Examiner (see Ans. 6) as
part of the annular seal receiving section. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants acknowledge that element O is part of the seal receiving section
in Pope, but explain that element O extends radially inward, not outward as
claimed. App. Br. 7. However, this argument is not persuasive because the
claim simply requires that the annular seal receiving portion includes a
flange without specifying where the flange is located. The claim simply
requires that the flange extends radially outward relative to the center axis.
As claim 1 does not limit the location of the flange and the Appellants do not
contend that flange 54 in Pope does not extend radially outward relative to
the center axis, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
Appellants further contend that because the annular seal 70 in Pope
does not rotate relative to the seal land in Pope, there is no reason to use a
high wear and lubricious seal like the one found in Dennison. App. Br. 7.
This argument is not persuasive because although the seal 70 may not rotate
relative to the seal land in Pope, there is still relative displacement between
the seal 70 and the face seal ring 80. See Pope, col. 6, ll. 50-59.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-4, 8, 10, and 21 depend from
claim 1 and are not argued separately. See App. Br. 6-7. These claims fall
with claim 1.

Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

9
Claims 5, 11-14, 16-18, and 29 – Pope/Dennison/Frank
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 11 is independent and includes
features similar to claim 1. Claims 12-14, 16-18, and 29 depend from claim
11. Appellants rely on the arguments presented regarding claim 1 and
additionally explain that the additional wear features recited in the claims
would not have been obvious in view of Frank because the annular seal 70
does not rotate relative to the seal land in Pope, similar to the arguments
presented regarding claim 1. App. Br. 8. These arguments are not
persuasive as explained above. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 5,
11-14, 16-18, and 29.

Claim 22 – Pope, Dennison, Frank, and Brauer
Claim 22 depends from claim 11 and Appellants rely on the
arguments presented regarding claim 1 for the patentability of claim 22.
App. Br. 9. As explained above, these arguments are unpersuasive and we
sustain the rejection of claim 22.

Claims 25-27 – Pope, Dennison, Frank, and Williams
Claim 25 depends from claim 5 and claim 26 depends from claim 11.
Claims 25 and 26 each further define the wear resistant coatings recited in
claims 5 and 11. Again, Appellants argue that the further modification in
view of Williams would not have been obvious because the annular seal 70
does not rotate relative to the seal land in Pope. App. Br. 9. This argument
is not convincing as explained above. Appellants further allege that the
rejection must be based on impermissible hindsight because the only
teaching of the claimed hardness is found in Appellants’ disclosure. Id.
Appeal 2011-006224
Application 11/262,313

10
However, the Examiner finds that Williams discloses making the coating a
hardness that is greater than that of the seal ring and explains that Pope
would be modified accordingly in order to improve wear characteristics.
Ans. 19-20. Appellants’ general allegation of hindsight, with nothing more,
does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Claim 27 depends from claim 1 and recites that the force transfer
section includes a hard coating. Appellants contend that Frank does not
teach the force transfer section having a hard coating. App. Br. 10. This
argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because the Examiner does
not rely on Frank for such a teaching. The Examiner simply relies on Frank
as generally disclosing the addition of a wear-resistant layer (e.g., on either
the contact portion of a spring or the contact portion of the member abutting
the spring). Ans. 20. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claim 27.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8, 10-14,
16-18, 20-22, and 25-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh