Ex Parte Vasagar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

14130511 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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.
SE201335NP 6738
EXAMINER
BYRD, EUGENE G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/130,511 01/02/2014
90850 7590 05/31/2017
Law Offices of Michael Crilly
104 South York Road
Hatboro, PA 19040
Thurai Manik Vasagar
05/31/2017 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 THURAI MANIK VASAGAR
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
Technology Center 3600
Before KEN B. BARRETT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thurai Manik Vasagar (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—54.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Stein Seal Company. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “is directed to a circumferential seal disposed
about a rotatable shaft.” Spec. 1,11. 6—7. Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, and 46
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A circumferential seal comprising:
(a) a ceramic runner circumscribed about a recess along a shaft,
said recess bounded by a shoulder and a clamping ring, a first
annular gap disposed between a first end of said ceramic runner
and said shoulder, a second end of said ceramic runner directly
contacts said clamping ring, an anti-rotation pin attached to said
clamping ring and extends into a slot along said ceramic runner,
at least one non-sealing spring mechanism disposed between and
directly contacts said shoulder and said first end along said first
annular gap, said at least one non-sealing spring mechanism
applies a biasing force onto said ceramic runner toward said
clamping ring;
(b) an annular seal ring circumscribed about said ceramic runner
and disposed within a seal housing so that said annular seal ring
is rotationally stationary;
(c) at least one tolerance ring directly contacts said ceramic
runner and said shaft along a second annular gap between said
ceramic runner and said shaft, said second annular gap disposed
along axial length of said ceramic runner and between said
ceramic runner and said shaft, said ceramic runner fixed to said
shaft via said at least one tolerance ring, said anti-rotation pin,
and said at least one non-sealing spring mechanism so that said
ceramic runner rotates with said shaft, said at least one
nonsealing spring mechanism expands and contracts in response
to contraction and expansion of said ceramic runner; and
(d) a pair of sealing rings disposed between said ceramic runner
and said shaft, each said sealing ring directly contacts said
ceramic runner along said second annular gap and directly
contacts said shaft along said second annular gap, said at least
one tolerance ring disposed between said pair of sealing rings
along said second annular gap, said pair of sealing rings prevents
2
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
contaminants originating in a higher pressure side and a lower
pressure side from contacting said at least one tolerance ring
within said second annular gap.
REJECTION
Claims 1—54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sedy (US 5,533,739, issued July 9, 1996), Munson (US 7,905,495 B2,
issued Mar. 15, 2011), and Wilhelm (US 2003/0015842 Al, published Jan.
23, 2003).
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues claims 1—54 as a group. Appeal Br. 16—25. We
select claim 1 as representative and claims 2—54 stand or fall with claim 1.
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(iv).
The issue for resolution of this appeal is centered on the limitations in
subparagraph (d) of claim l.2 The Examiner finds that Sedy discloses “a
ceramic runner 40,” “at least one tolerance ring 42’,” and “a pair of sealing
rings 35,36 disposed between said ceramic runner and [said] shaft.” Final
Act. 2 (citing Sedy Fig. 1). The Examiner reasons that “the use of an
additional seal ring along the second gap is considered to be obvious since a
mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced.” Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to provide an additional duplicate sealing ring
along the second gap as a matter of mechanical expedience and in order to
further ensure sealing along the gap.” Id. at 4.
2 The same limitations appear in the other independent claims 10, 19, 28, 37,
and 46. Appeal Br. 28—29, 31—34, 36-40 (Claims App.)
3
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
Appellant contends that Sedy does not provide any written description
of element 35 and consequently, it is improper for the Examiner to conclude
based on Sedy’s Figure 1 that element 35 is an O-ring or other type of
sealing device. Appeal Br. 18—19. Appellant agrees with the “Examiner to
the extent that Sedy describes element 36 to be an O-ring” but notes that
“element 36 is shown along a vertical interface between a sealing ring 22
and a shaft sleeve 40 . . . rather than the horizontal interface between a
carrier and a ceramic runner or a shaft and a ceramic runner as claimed in
the present application.” Id. at 19. Appellant next contends that element 35
“could be a non-sealing centering ring or a spring that complements or
supplements function of the strips 42.” Id. at 21—22. Appellant argues that
Sedy “fails to describe a need for sealing along and between a rotatable shaft
12 and a sleeve 40.” Id. at 23. In support of this argument Appellant notes
that Sedy is directed to sealing a fluid within annular space 14 and restrict its
passage into fluid environment 16 and is not concerned with “migration of
contaminants between the shaft 12 and the sleeve 40” and if Sedy was so
concerned “would have placed the element 35 adjacent to the annular space
14.” Id.
Appellant next contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
modify Sedy to incorporate two sealing rings “because the problem/solution
taught by Sedy does not appear to apply to the interface along which the
unidentified element 35 is shown by Sedy.” Id. at 24. In support of this
contention, Appellant argues that Sedy teaches “that contaminants are
permitted to contact the tolerance rings because he fails to place the
element 35 . .. between the tolerance rings 42 and the source of
contaminants, namely, the annular space 14.” Id.
4
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
The Examiner responds that Sedy discloses items 30 and 36 as O-ring
seals which “seal the space between the sealing ring 18 and the housing 10
and precludes leakage between the sealing ring 22 and the shaft sleeve 40.”
Ans. 2. The Examiner continues that “reference numeral 35 (shown as being
identical to O-ring seals 30 and 36) is an O-ring seal” and “reference
numeral 35 clearly show[s] the structure which is claimed and describes its’
identically illustrated reference numerals 30 and 36 for written description.”
Id. at 3(citing Sedy, 3:48-49, 58—60). The Examiner also responds that
element 35 is not a spring, as argued by Appellant, because “it does not have
adjoining lines to indicate what one of ordinary skill in the art would
remotely recognize as spring.” Id. at 4. In response to Appellant’s
contention that Sedy fails to disclose a need for sealing between shaft 12 and
sleeve 40, the Examiner maintains the assertion that, in the absence of a new
and unexpected result, the inclusion of a second sealing ring is merely a
duplication of parts. Id. For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
Sedy discloses “sealing devices for rotating shafts where fluid is
employed to generate pressure forces.” Sedy, 1:9-10. In Sedy, the “forces
provide for slight separation and non-contacting operation of the above
sealing elements, thereby minimizing face wear and friction losses while
maintaining low fluid leakage.” Id. 1:13—16. Sedy discloses that its device
is meant to “seal a fluid within the annular space 14 and to restrict its escape
into the fluid environment at 16.” Id. 3:36—38, Fig. 1. Sedy discloses that
O-ring 30 “seals the space between the sealing ring 18 and the housing 10.”
Id. 3:48-49. Sedy also discloses that O-ring 36 “precludes leakage between
the sealing ring 22 and the shaft sleeve 40.” Id. 3:58—60.
5
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
Appellant’s contentions are all based, at least in part, on the
undisputed fact that Sedy does not explicitly describe element 35 as a
sealing ring. We first note that element 35 is represented in Figure 1 in
virtually the identical manner as elements 30 and 36 which are described in
Sedy as O-ring seals. See Sedy, Fig. 1. Appellant does not direct us to any
portion of Sedy that describes or implies element 35 is either a non-sealing
centering ring or a spring. In addition, element 35 is not shown with
multiple coils, like Sedy’s spring 28 in Figure 1, as one of ordinary skill in
the art would expect a spring to be illustrated. Although element 35 is not
explicitly described by Sedy as a sealing ring, there are relevant teachings in
Sedy’s disclosure from which one of ordinary skill in the art can discern the
function of element 35. Sedy discloses that its device is intended to prevent
fluid loss from annular space 14 into fluid space 16. O-rings 30 and 36 are
placed in flow paths between fluid spaces 14 and 16. Sedy’s Figure 1
discloses another flow path between 14 and 16 in the annular gap at 33
between shaft 12 and ceramic runner 40. See Sedy, Fig. I.3 If element 35 is
not a sealing ring, then fluid could flow from space 14 through annular gap
33 and into space 16 at the interface between ceramic runner 40 and
clamping ring 34. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that element 35 is a sealing ring to prevent escape of fluid from space 14 to
space 16 through annular gap 33. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s
finding that element 35 is a sealing ring is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
3 We note that Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding of an
annular gap at 33 between shaft 14 and ceramic runner 40. See Final Act. 2,
Appeal Br. 16—24.
6
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
The Examiner reasoned that adding a second sealing ring as recited in
claim 1 is an obvious duplication of parts in the absence of new or
unexpected results. Final Act. 2—3; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774
(CCPA 1960). The Examiner also reasoned that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to include a second sealing ring, inter alia,
“to further ensure sealing along the gap.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues
that one of ordinary skill would not add a second sealing ring because Sedy
is solving a different problem than Appellant. Appeal Br. 24. However, the
fact that Sedy may be solving a different problem does not obviate the
Examiner’s rationale for the determination of obviousness. See In re Kahn,
441 F. 3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“the problem examined is not the
specific problem solved by the invention but the general problem confronted
by the inventor before the invention was made.”). Appellant does not direct
us to any evidence in the record or provide persuasive argument that placing
two sealing rings on the rotating shaft as recited in claim 1, in addition to the
sealing ring 35 in Sedy, results in new or unexpected results. Additionally,
we determine the Examiner’s reasoning concerning the inclusion of a second
seal to further ensure sealing to be adequate articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or reasoning for the rejection, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 2—54 fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—54 is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2017-006505
Application 14/130,511
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
8