Ex Parte Bowie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2018

13756735 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018)

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.
13/756,735 02/01/2013 Angus George Bowie 67012-029 PUS 1 1069
26096 7590 01/26/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANGUS GEORGE BOWIE1
Appeal 2016-007896
Application 13/756,735
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-202 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Hyde (US 3,835,889, issued Sept. 17, 1974). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Stats (UK) Limited (“Appellant”) is the Applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 8-10 are cancelled. Response 3 (March 10, 2015).
Appeal 2016-007896
Application 13/756,735
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1, An isolation tool for isolating a section of a pipe, the tool
comprising:
a body:
an isolation seal adapted for location on the body and
configured to engage a pipe wall: and
an activation arrangement for urging the seal into sealing
contact with the pipe wall, the activation arrangement
controlled by a fluid pressure differential anting across the tool,
the activation arrangement comprising a tug device configured
for bi-directional movement in the pipe in response to the
pressure differential, the tug device applying a tensile force for
retaining the tool in a first deactivated configuration when the
pressure differential acts on a first direction and a. compressive
force for moving the tool to a second activated configuration in
response to the pressure differential acting m a second
direction.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Hyde discloses all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 20 including, inter alia, an
activation arrangement comprising] a tug device (item 16,
[FJigure 3) configured for bi-directional movement in the pipe
in response to [a] pressure differential (hydraulic fluid can
apply pressure to seals 16 in both directions^] thus enabling the
tool to move in both directions), the tug device applying a
tensile force for retaining the tool [1] in a first deactivated
configuration when the pressure differential acts on a first
direction . . . and a compressive force for moving the tool to a
second activated configuration in response to the pressure
differential acting in a second direction.
2
Appeal 2016-007896
Application 13/756,735
Final Act. 2-3. More particularly, with respect to the limitation relating to
tensile force, the Examiner finds that “item 16 moves the isolation tool
device in [a] downstream direction in a deactivated configuration when fluid
is acting on the item 16; this way item 16 is applying a tensile force on the
tool, [Fjigure 1.” Id. at 3. With respect to the limitation relating to
compressive force, the Examiner finds that “when [the] pressure differential
is changed, the tool experiences compressive force due to the pressure acting
on item 16 and activates the sealing means to come into contact with the
pipe wall, [Fjigure 2.” Id. The Examiner finds that
Hyde discloses that the tool is configured so that the tool is
retained in the deactivated configuration when the fluid
pressure differential acts in a first, downstream, direction and
the tool is moved from the deactivated configuration to the
activated configuration when the fluid pressure differential acts
in a second, upstream direction.
Id. (citing Hyde 4:49-65).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that
Hyde provide[s] a “tug device [that applies] a tensile force for
retaining the tool in a first deactivated configuration when the
pressure differential is acting in a first direction” and “a
compressive force for moving the tool to a second activate[d]
configuration in response to the pressure differential acting in a
second direction.”
Appeal Br. 3. More particularly, Appellant asserts that “[t]he pressure
differential acts from a right side 51 (upstream) to a left side 50 of the pipe
as shown in Figure 4” when the tool is retained in a deactivated
configuration (Reply Br. 1), and “[t]he tool assumes an activated
configuration in response to the pressure differential acting across
expandable seal means 7 in the original direction of travel (i.e., towards the
left of the pipe) and not in a second direction” {id. at 2). Appellant asserts
3
Appeal 2016-007896
Application 13/756,735
that any compressive force applied by sealing cups 16 “would not move the
tool to a second, activated configuration in response to the pressure
differential acting in a second direction.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that Hyde
discloses a tool that is configured so that the tool is retained in a deactivated
configuration when the fluid pressure differential acts in a first direction
(e.g., downstream) and is moved to an activated configuration when the fluid
pressure differential acts in a second direction (e.g., upstream). See Final
Act. 3; Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1-2. Hyde discloses that a fluid pressure
differential that activates isolation seal 7 acts in the same direction (e.g.,
downstream) as a fluid pressure differential that is established across sealing
cups 16 to drive the device down the pipeline while isolation seal 7 is in a
deactivated configuration. See Hyde 4:13-20, 55-67. Moreover, it is
unclear how Hyde’s tool, as configured, would be capable of activating
isolation seal 7 when a fluid pressure differential acts in an upstream
direction. In connection with how the fluid pressure differential activates
isolation seal 7, Hyde describes only that continued pressure received
through valve 47 and the resulting closure of valve 4 by overcoming the
spring tension in coil spring 25 to move mandrel 27 downstream “creates a
pressure differential across head 8, casing 9[,] and cup 12, forcing ribs 10
into contact with the pipeline 15 and firmly anchoring the seal plug in the
pipeline.” Id. at 4:62-67.
To the extent the Examiner’s position is that “if the pressure acting on
seal member 2 was higher than the pressure acting on sealing means 7, then
the leak detector tool would move to the right side of the host pipe due to the
pressure differential” (Ans. 6), such that Hyde’s tool would be retained in a
4
Appeal 2016-007896
Application 13/756,735
deactivated configuration when the fluid pressure differential acts in a first
direction (i.e., to the right/upstream) and would be moved to an activated
configuration when the fluid pressure differential acts in a second direction
(i.e., to the left/downstream), the Examiner’s position appears to fail to
account for the sealing cups 16 of seal member 2 applying a tensile force on
the tool (which the Examiner only explains would be inherent when driving
the device in a downstream direction). See Final Act. 6. Consequently, we
do not see how Hyde’s tool, as provided, has a tug device that is capable of
both applying a tensile force for retaining the tool in a deactivated
configuration when the pressure differential acts in a first direction and
applying a compressive force for moving the tool to a deactivated
configuration in response to the pressure differential acting in a second
direction.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 20, and claims 2-7 and 11-19 which depend therefrom, as anticipated
by Hyde.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7 and 11-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hyde is reversed.
REVERSED
5