Ex Parte Roddis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12900267 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/900,267 10/07/2010 Alan James Roddis
60333 7590 08/10/2016
EDWIN D, SCHINDLER
4 HIGH OAKS COURT
P.O. BOX 4259
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743-0777
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.
7454
EXAMINER
BYRD, EUGENE G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN JAMES RODDIS and
EASA TAHERI-OSKOUEI
Appeal2014-008995
Application 12/900,267
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-12,
and 15-23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as AES Engineering, Ltd. (App. Br.
1.)
Appeal2014-008995
Application 12/900,267
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to a flow inducing ring for a
mechanical seal. (Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A flow inducing ring for a mechanical seal, comprising:
a body portion;
a first groove extending both axially and circumferentially
in a first direction across said body portion, said first groove
having an entry portion for drawing barrier fluid into said first
groove and an exit portion for expelling barrier fluid from said
first groove with said first groove having a constant cross-section
along its length between the entry portion and the exit portion
and with the entry portion of said first groove being angled
relative to a longitudinal axis of said flow inducing ring and the
exit portion being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of said
flow inducing ring and having a leading edge and a trailing edge
with an angle of the leading edge and an angle of the trailing
edge being substantially identical to one another and the angle
of the leading edge and the angle of the trailing edge each being
substantially 90°; and,
a second groove extending both axially and
circumferentially in a second direction across said body portion,
said second direction being a direction opposite said first
direction, said second groove having an entry portion for drawing
barrier fluid into said second groove and an exit portion for
expelling barrier fluid from said second groove with said second
groove having a constant cross-section along its length between
the entry portion and the exit portion and with the entry portion
and the exit portion of said second groove being angled relative
to the longitudinal axis of said flow inducing ring and the exit
portion being angled relative to the longitudinal axis of said flow
inducing ring and having a leading edge and a trailing edge with
an angle of the leading edge and an angle of the trailing edge
being substantially identical to one another and the angle of the
leading edge and the angle of the trailing edge each being
substantially 90°.
2
Appeal2014-008995
Application 12/900,267
Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Oskouei (US 6,428,011 B 1, issued Aug. 6, 2002) and
Chen (US 5,716,141, issued Feb. 10, 1998). (Final Act. 2-7.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred (App. Br. 13-18; Reply Br. 1-5). We are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 2-5). We highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue all claims as a group. (App. Br. 13-16.) We select
claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue Chen teaches away from Appellants' claimed
invention because Appellants' claimed invention and Oskouei are directed to
flow-inducing rings and, in contrast, a stated goal of Chen is to minimize net
pumping action and flow. (App. Br. 14--15 (citing Chen col. 1, 11. 12-17,
col. 3, 11. 52-57).) Appellants do not challenge (1) the Examiner's finding
that Oskouei teaches all limitations of claim 1 except that the angle of the
leading edge and trailing edge of the exit portions are substantially 90
degrees, or (2) the Examiner's finding that Chen teaches the missing
limitation. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2--4.) Rather, Appellants contend the
Examiner has selected an isolated feature of Chen "while acknowledging
that Chen is directed toward a purpose that is contrary to the presently
claimed invention of Appellants, and that Chen could only be applied
3
Appeal2014-008995
Application 12/900,267
against the claims of Appellants' invention by discounting, if not ignoring,
the contrary purpose." (App. Br. 16.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion of
obviousness, and Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error in the
rejection. The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to modify Oskouei's exit portion of the groove to the 90-
degree angle shown in Figure 5 of Chen in order to prevent fluid from
reversing direction and re-entering the grooves. (Final Act. 3 (citing Chen
col. 10, 11. 6-10).) Chen's overall purpose of minimizing net pumping
action is fulfilled by having short 90-degree "steps" at both the entry and
exit portions of the grooves in order to neutralize overall fluid flow. (See
Chen col. 10, 11. 7-9; see also Chen col. 8, 11. 2--4 ("This initial axial
grooving step results in a short step groove 38 which is neutral with respect
to hydrodynamic pumping action.").) Chen's teachings would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art with the goal of promoting pumping to recognize
that a 90-degree step groove at the exit would neutralize back-pumping at
the exit and, therefore, increase the net pumping effect.
"In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, nether the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Absent a showing that Chen is non-analogous art, one of ordinary skill in the
art would naturally look to Chen to further understand how groove geometry
can affect hydrodynamic pumping and flow in a rotating ring. Thus, we are
not persuaded that Chen's overall purpose would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to ignore Chen's teachings as to the specific effects of the 90-
degree steps and how they may be used in appropriate circumstances.
4
Appeal2014-008995
Application 12/900,267
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-12, and
15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oskouei and Chen.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-12, and
15-23.
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
5