Ex Parte 7353880 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

95001119 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
95/001,119 11/18/2008 7353880 069669-0007-09 8440
9629 7590 09/11/2013
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA)
1111 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
EXAMINER
GRAHAM, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2013 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
____________

TESCO CORP.
Requester and Respondent

v.

Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, DANIEL S. SONG, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal by the Patent Owner in the above-
identified inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,353,880. The
Patent Owner appeals the Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 7-10, 25, and
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

2
26 as obvious over 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board‟s jurisdiction for this appeal
is under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134, and 315. We reverse and set forth new
ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. §41.77(b).

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The patent in dispute in this appeal is US 7,353,880 B2 (hereinafter,
“the „880 patent”), which issued April 8, 2008. A request for inter partes
reexamination of the „880 patent was filed on November 18, 2008, by a
Third Party Requester under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.902-
1.997 (Request for Inter Partes Reexamination). The Patent Owner is
Weatherford/Lamb, Inc. (hereinafter, “Weatherford”) (Weatherford App. Br.
1, dated January 17, 2012). The Third Party Requester is Tesco Corporation
(hereinafter, “Tesco”). An oral hearing was held August 7, 2013.
Arguments were heard only from Weatherford. Tesco did not participate in
the oral hearing and did not file a brief in a response to Weatherford‟s
Appeal Brief. A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the record
(Oral Hearing Transcript).
The claims of the „880 patent involve methods and an apparatus for
connecting tubulars in the construction of oil or gas wells („880 patent, col.
1, ll. 25-30). Claims 7-10, 25, and 26 remain in the appeal and stand
rejected. Claims 7 and 25 are independent claims. Claims 1-6, 11, 21, 24,
and 28 have been cancelled. Patent Owner has dropped its appeal for claims
20, 22, 23, and 27 (Weatherford App. Br. 2).
According to Weatherford, the litigation identified previously
involving U.S. Patent No. 7,219,744, Civil Action No.2:07-cv-531 (TJW),
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

3
Weatherford International, Inc., et al., v. Tesco Corporation, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, has
been settled. (Weatherford App. Br. 2) As part of the settlement,
Weatherford states that Tesco, who was a defendant in the lawsuit, agreed
that it would no longer participate in this reexamination (id.).
There is one related appeal, which is the appeal in Reexamination
95/001,114 for US 7,219,744 (“the „744 patent”). This appeal has been
assigned the appeal number 2013-007075, and has been decided
concurrently with this appeal. The „880 patent is a continuation of the
application that issued as the „744 patent.

II. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Representative claim 7 is reproduced below (underlining and
bracketing indicate amendments relative to the original claims):
7. An apparatus for connecting casing sections by using a top
drive, comprising:
at least one elevator;
at least two bails operatively coupled to the top drive at
one end and the at least one elevator at another end;
an actuator operatively coupled to each of the at least two
bails and configured to rotate the at least [one] two bails about a
horizontal axis, whereby the at least one elevator is moved from
a first location substantially below the top drive to a second
location out from under the top drive; and
a plurality of [at least one] gripping elements operatively
coupled to the top drive and configured to be radially
displaceable for engagement with an inner wall of a casing.

Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

4
III. REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected by the Examiner as follows:
1. Claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Gjedebo
1
and Brown
2
(Answer 3-4).
2. Claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Gjedebo, Brown, Krasnov
3
(Answer 4-5).
IV. GJEDEBO
G1. Figure 1 of Gjedebo, reproduced below, shows a device to
interconnect pipes (3) to form a casing (1) (Abstract):

1
Gjedebo, Jon, WO 98/11322, published March 19, 1998.
2
Brown, Cicero C., US 3,747,675, issued July 24, 1973.
3
Krasnov, Igor, US 4,793,422, issued December 27, 1988.
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

5
The top drive is 7. The output shaft 8 of the top drive 7 is attached to
the upper end of a telescopic pipe 9 (p. 5). The catcher 11, is attached to the
shaft 8, is “adapted to be guided into the pipe (3) and to be expanded to rest
against the pipe and, thus, to establish an internal friction connection.” (Id.)
The elevator is 4 (id.). The pipe is 3 (id.). The casing is 1 which is to be
extended with the pipe 3 (id. at 7.) The casing 1 “is screwed [into] an
external socket 2 provided with internal complementary threads. The socket
2 forms an internally threaded extension of the casing 1.” (Id.)
G2. With reference to Figure 1, Gjedebo describes the following
process for attaching a new pipe (3) to a casing (Abstract) (G3-G5):
G3. “A device serves to interconnect pipes (3) to form a casing
(1).” (Id.)
G4. “A new pipe (3) to be added to the top of the casing (1), is
suspended from an elevator (4) assigned a drawworks, the latter being
assigned a top drive (7) above the elevator (4).” (Id.)
G5.
The device comprises a tubular hydraulic telescopic device (9,
10), one end thereof being connected to the output shaft (8) of
the top drive (7), the other end thereof being provided with a
catcher (11) adapted to catch, raise and rotate the pipe (3). The
catcher (11) is adapted to be guided into the pipe (3) and to be
expanded to rest against the pipe and, thus, to establish an
internal friction connection.
(Id.)
G6. “Further, it is presupposed that a top driven rotational system, a
so[-]called „top drive‟, substantially used for drilling purposes, is assigned to
the drawworks at a higher level than the elevator, as previously known.”
(Page 3.)
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

6
G7.
A pipe [3] to be added to the top of a casing [1], is suspended
from the elevator as previously known. . . . Then, the pipe is
raised somewhat by means of the telescope [9, 10], the pipe
sliding in the elevator which is not raised . . . Then, the pipe is
lowered down to contact with the casing by means of the
telescope and put into rotation by means of the top drive
[7]. The pipe is lowered gradually by means of the telescope
as it is screwed to the top of the casing. Finally, the
threaded connection is tightened to the moment prescribed.
. . . The connector is released and lifted clear of the top of the
pipe, whereafter the casing is lowered into the well as
previously known by means of the elevator, the process being
repeated for each new pipe.
(Page 3-4; emphasis added.)
G8. “The pipe 3 is suspended from an elevator 4 which, by means of
bows, hoops or rods 5, is assigned a drawworks, not shown.” (Page 5.)
G9. “The telescopic pipe 9, the pipe member 10 and, thus, also the
pipe 3 are rotated about their own axis by means of the top drive 7, so that
the pipe 3 is screwed into the socket 2.” (Page 7.)
G10. Figure 6 shows catcher 11:

Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

7

Figure 6 shows catcher 11 as an egg shaped cylindrical form which is
connected to the telescopic device 10, the latter which is connected to the
top drive (G5).
G11. Gjedebo teaches that it was known in the art to use an elevator
for vertical positioning of pipe (line spanning pages 1-2).

V. KRASNOV
K1. Krasnov describes an “apparatus for a top drive drill rig [that]
lifts a stand of the drill pipe into engagement with the drive stem in the
derrick. The apparatus includes a set of elevators mounted between the
drive head by a link assembly.” (Abstract; emphasis added.) “In this
invention, an articulated link assembly connects the conventional elevators
into the drive head assembly. The elevators releasably clamp around the
drill pipe.” (Col. 1, ll. 49-51.)
K2. Krasnov teaches in the Abstract:
The link assembly includes two link sections connected
together by a swivel joint. An upper hydraulic cylinder is
connected between the drive head and the upper link section. A
lower hydraulic cylinder is connected between the upper and
lower link sections. These cylinders may be retracted to pull the
stand of drill pipe upward into contact with the drive stem.
K3. The link assembly includes hydraulic cylinders and piston rods
(col. 2, ll. 54-68).
K4. “The drive head assembly 21 is a top drive assembly, having a
drive stem 23 that is rotated by the drive head assembly 21. The drive stem
23 connects to a string of drill pipe 25.” (Col. 2, ll. 20-23.)
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

8
Krasnov describes its process as follows:
K5. “During normal drilling, the elevators 45 will be loosely
engaging the drill pipe 25. The drill pipe 25 will rotate relative to the
elevators 45. The upper and lower link sections 35, 41, will be in the fully
extended position shown in FIG. 4, parallel to the axis of the drive stem 23.”
(Col. 3, ll. 38-43.)
K6. As the elevator reaches the rig floor, the elevator is released and,
as shown in Figure 3, the piston rods are fully retracted, moving the elevator
horizontally from a position below the top drive to a position away from the
top drive (col. 3, ll. 5-14 and 44-53; see Figure 3).
K7. When the string of drill pipe is drilled fully down, the connection
between the drive stem 23 and drill pipe 25 is broken (col. 3, ll. 54-56). The
drive stem 23 is pulled up (col. 3, ll. 58-61).
K8. A stand of three sections of the drill pipe is made up in the mouse
hole of the drill rig (col. 3, ll. 62-64). “The derrick hand will close the
elevators 45 around the upper end of the stand of drill pipe 25. The driller
will pick up the blocks 17 and the stand of drillpipe 25 will be swung over to
a point above the rotary table 27.” (Col. 3, ll. 64-67.)
K9. The drill pipe is aligned with the top drive using the
piston/cylinder actuator to move the elevator:
Then the driller actuates a valve to apply hydraulic fluid
pressure to the lower hydraulic cylinders 57 and to one end of
each upper hydraulic cylinder 49. This causes the piston rods
61 to retract and one piston rod 53 of each upper hydraulic
cylinder 49 to retract. At the same time the upper piston rods 53
retract, the upper link sections 35 pivot upward about the eye
33, as shown in FIG. 2. . . . The elevators 45 will move
upward, lifting the stand of drill pipe 25.
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

9
(Col. 4, ll. 3-12; emphasis added.)
K10. A connection is made between the uppermost tool 47 of the drill
pipe 47 and the drive stem 23 of the top drive. The driller “will rotate the
drive stem 23 to make up the connection with the tool joint 47.” (Col. 4, ll.
17-25).
K11. “The driller then releases pressure in the hydraulic cylinders 49,
51 allowing each to move to the extended position shown in FIG. 4.” (Col.
4, 26-28.) Drilling will continue using the drive stem 23 to rotate the drill
pipe (col. 4, ll. 28-29).
K12. The weight of the string of drill pipe 25 is supported by the link
sections which are attached to the top drive (col. 4, ll. 33-35).
K13. The cycle is repeated when the elevator reaches the drill rig
floor (col. 4, ll. 29-30).
K14.
The invention has significant advantages. The articulated link
assembly allows the driller to easily pull the stand into contact
with the drive stem, even though the connection is made up
ninety feet above the rig floor. This avoids damage to the
threads of the drill pipe and drive stem.
(Col. 4, ll. 36-41.)

VI. REJECTIONS BASED ON GJEDEBO AND BROWN
Claims 7-10 stand rejected over the combination Gjedebo and Brown
(Rejection 1). Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected further based on the
additionally cited patent to Krasnov (Rejection 2).
Claims 7-10, 25, and 26 require an elevator connected to a top drive.
The Examiner found this feature was described Gjedebo, but the only
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

10
structure identified in Gjedebo by the Examiner as meeting this limitation is
the drawworks. The Examiner found that the elevator is connected to the
top drive because both the top drive and elevator are connected to the
drawworks (Answer 5-6). This interpretation is not reasonable.
Claim 7 recites “at least two bails operatively coupled to the top drive
at one end and the at least one elevator at another end.” Claim 25 has
similar language. As explained in the “Summary of the Invention” of the
„880 patent, coupling the elevator to the top drive is for the purpose of
facilitating the connection of tubulars (col. 2, ll. 6-15; col. 3, ll. 11-29.) The
elevator is moved by the top drive. All the embodiments in the „880 patent
describe and show a direct connection to the top drive, whether by attaching
the bails directly to the top drive or through a component (see Fig. 1a-1e; 2a-
2d; col. 3, ll. 19-22). The skilled worker would thus understand that the
term “connect,” which has the ordinary meaning of “to join or fasten
together,”
4
means that the elevator is connected to the top drive in such a
way that the top drive can move the elevator.
Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of
the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Abbott
Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner‟s
interpretation that the top drive and elevator are connected because they both
are attached to a drawworks (G4, G6, and G8) is broader than what is
described in the „880 patent and unreasonable based upon reading the patent

4
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connect (accessed August 21, 2013).
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

11
and the language of the claims. In Gjedebo, the top drive and elevator are
not mechanically connected together, and the connection does not permit the
elevator to be moved by the top drive. Rather, the two are just supported by
the same drawworks.
Claims 7-10, 25, and 26 require a bail actuator. The Examiner
contends that the drawworks in Gjedebo to which the elevator is attached is
an actuator (Answer 6).
The term “actuator” is not defined in the „880 patent. We therefore
adopt its ordinary dictionary meaning as a “mechanism that puts something
into automatic action.”
5
Consistent with this interpretation, the „880 patent
shows a piston and cylinder mechanism as actuating the bails (col. 2, ll. 59-
64; col. 3, ll. 46-54).
The Examiner states that the drawworks is an actuator because it is
“for raising and lowering pipes.” (Answer 6.) However, Weatherford argues
that a drawworks is not an actuator as that term would be understood upon
reading the „880 patent. Rather, Weatherford contends that drawworks is
operated manually: “Any argument that an actuator could be a rig hand who
might move the bails would be contrary to the scope and intent of the
description in the '880 Patent that movement of the bails is „actuated‟
through the mechanical action of elements such as pistons and cylinders.”
(Weatherford Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner did not provide evidence or a
persuasive rationale to the contrary, but rather appeared to not take into
account the ordinary meaning of “actuator” as it would be understood upon

5
“a mechanism that puts something into automatic action”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/actuator, accessed August 12, 2013.)
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

12
reading the „880 patent. The Examiner did not provide evidence that the
drawworks activates or puts into automatic action the elevator that is
attached.
Claims 25 and 26 further recites that the actuator comprises “a piston
and cylinder assembly.” The Examiner cites Krasnov for teaching an
actuator meeting this claim limitation. However, the Examiner improperly
found that Gjedebo describes an actuator. The rejection based on Gjedebo,
Brown, and Krasnov is therefore deficient.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 7-10, 25,
and 26.
VII. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We agreed with Weatherford that Gjedebo is deficient in not teaching
an actuator or an elevator connected to a top drive and reversed all the
Examiner‟s rejections. However, after considering the description by
Krasnov of a device for connecting drill pipe, we have determined that
claims 7-10, 25, and 26 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Gjedebo, Brown, and Krasnov. We designate this as a new ground of
rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b). The rationale for the rejection is set
forth below.
Claims 7-10
Claim 7 is an apparatus claim comprising: 1) an elevator; 2) bails
coupled to a top drive at one end and an elevator at the other end; 3) an
actuator; and 4) plurality of gripping elements coupled to the top drive.
Krasnov describes an apparatus for connecting drill pipe comprising
claimed elements (1) through (3). Specifically, Krasnov teaches an elevator
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

13
which is connected to a top drive with link sections (elements (1) and (2);
K1); and link assembly, which includes hydraulic cylinders and piston rods
(K2 and K3), where the links serve as bails and the cylinders/rods act as
actuators which swivel and enable movement as in element (3).
Claim 7 further recites “whereby the at least one elevator is moved
from a first location substantially below the top drive to a second location
out from under the top drive.” Since claim 7 is an apparatus claim, the
“whereby” clause does not have to be carried out by the cited prior art, but
the prior art devices must be capable of producing the recited operation. In
this case, Krasnov specifically describes moving the elevator when it reaches
the rig floor to a position which is away from the top drive (K6), meeting the
claimed limitation.
Krasnov does not describe gripping elements with the structure recited
in element (4) of claim 21. However, gripping elements with such structure
are taught by Brown. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to substitute Brown‟s gripping elements for Krasnov‟s for its
established function in gripping casing employed as a drilling string (Brown
Abstract: “A drive connection for connecting a rotary power source to a
string of well casing employed as a rotary drilling string. The drive
connection . . . is provided with . . . a slip expander for gripping the interior
of the casing and pipe-gripping shoes operable in response to angular
movement of the mandrel to apply torsional force to the casing.”). KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“. . . a court must ask whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.”)
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

14
We note that Krasnov‟s apparatus is for connecting drill string, while
Brown‟s apparatus is for connecting casing drill string (Brown, col. 1, ll. 38-
42). However, Gjedebo describes an apparatus for connecting casings which
uses the elevator to move a second casing pipe into alignment in order to
interconnect it to a first casing pipe (G1, G3, and G7). Weatherford
acknowledges that both casings and drill pipes are tubulars, and thus
members of the same class of structural elements („880 patent, col 1, ll. 25-
30; Oral Hearing Transcript, p. 4, l. 21 to p. 5, l. 9). Logically, because
Krasnov teaches aligning a drill pipe with an elevator attached to a top drive
in order to attach the pipe to another stand of drill pipe, the skilled worker
would have seen that operation generally useful when connecting other
tubulars and would have found it obvious to apply it to casings, as taught by
Gjedebo, when forming the casing of a drilled well for the advantages taught
by Krasnov, i.e., facilitating making connections (K14). Once the apparatus
is applied to casings, the ordinary skilled worker would have found it
obvious to substitute Brown‟s gripping tool for Krasnov‟s for the reasons
already discussed.
We note that the claim preamble recites that it is drawn to an
“apparatus for connecting casing sections by using a top drive assembly.”
“Preamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an
invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.” Bicon,
Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “If the body of
the claim „sets out the complete invention,‟ the preamble is not ordinarily
treated as limiting the scope of the claim. Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys.,
Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, the preamble is
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

15
regarded as limiting if it recites essential structure that is important to the
invention or necessary to give meaning to the claim.” Bicon, 441 F.3d at
952. “[W]hen the limitations in the body of the claim „rely upon and derive
antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a
necessary component of the claimed invention.‟” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell
Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” Id. In this case, there is
insufficient evidence that claim preamble imparts a structure to the claim
which is not already recited in the body of the claim.
During oral argument, Weatherford argued that the claim preamble in
combination with the gripping elements require the top drive to rotate the
casings to connect them (Oral Hearing Transcript, p. 17, l. 7 to p. 18, l. 7).
However, first, we fail to see what additional structure that would add to the
claim. Second, since the gripping elements are coupled to the top drive, the
top drive would be capable of being rotated to connect casing using the
gripping elements, even if that step was not explicitly taught or suggested by
Krasnov.
With respect to claims 8 and 9 which depend on claim 7, Tesco
identified the features of the claims in Krasnov (Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination 290-291). We find Tesco‟s contentions factually supported
and adopt them herein.

Claims 25 and 26
Independent claim 25 has substantially the same four elements as
recited in claim 7, but the actuator in claim 25 is specifically recited to
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

16
comprise a piston and cylinder assembly. Krasnov‟s apparatus comprises a
piston and cylinder assembly which serves as an actuator (K2 and K3).
Claim 26 depends on claim 25 and further recites “wherein the
elevator is pivotally coupled to the two bails.” Krasnov expressly teaches
this structure. In particular, Krasnov discloses that “[t]he lower link section
41 has a loop 43 on its lower end. A set of conventional elevators 45 are
adapted to be coupled to the loops 43.” (Col. 2, ll. 48-51; Figs. 2, 3).
Furthermore, Krasnov discloses that “[t]he lower link section is pivotally to
the elevator and at its upper end, pivotally connected to the lower end of the
upper link section.” (Col. 1, ll. 54-57).
For the forgoing reasons and the reasons stated above for claim 7, we
conclude that claims 25 and 26 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Krasnov, Brown, and Gjedebo.

TIME PERIOD; NEW GROUNDS
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b) which provides that “[a]ny decision which includes a new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review.” Accordingly, no portion of the decision is final for
purposes of judicial review. A requester may also request rehearing under
37 C.F.R. § 41.79, if appropriate, however, the Board may elect to defer
issuing any decision on such request for rehearing until such time that a final
decision on appeal has been issued by the Board.
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

17
For further guidance on new grounds of rejection, see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b)-(g). The decision may become final after it has returned to the
Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f).
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) also provides that the Patent Owner, WITHIN
ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one
of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file a response requesting
reopening of prosecution before the examiner. Such a response must be
either an amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both.
(2) Request rehearing. The owner may request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.79 by the Board upon the same record. …
Any request to reopen prosecution before the examiner under 37
C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(1) shall be limited in scope to the “claims so rejected.”
Accordingly, a request to reopen prosecution is limited to issues raised by
the new ground(s) of rejection entered by the Board. A request to reopen
prosecution that includes issues other than those raised by the new ground(s)
is unlikely to be granted.
A requester may file comments in reply to a patent owner response.
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(c).
Compliance with the page limits pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.943(b), for
all patent owner responses and requester comments, is required.
The examiner, after the Board‟s entry of a patent owner response and
requester comments, will issue a determination under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(d)
Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

18
as to whether the Board‟s rejection is maintained or has been overcome.
The proceeding will then be returned to the Board together with any
comments and reply submitted by the owner and/or requester under
37 C.F.R. § 41.77(e) for reconsideration and issuance of a new decision by
the Board as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f).

REVERSED; 41.77(b)

Appeal 2013-006812
Reexamination Control 95/001,119
Patent 7,353,880 B2

19

cc:
Patent Owner:

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004

Third Party Requester:

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
P.O. Box 61389
Houston, TX 77208-1389

alw