Ex Parte Du et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201312056643 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL H. DU, MICHELE ARENA, GARY L. RYTLEWSKI, and WILLIAM D. CHAPMAN ____________________ Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael H. Du et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A well system, comprising: a lower completion; a downhole equipment assembly; and a wet mate system coupled to the downhole equipment assembly to enable disconnection of the downhole equipment assembly from the lower completion assembly and reconnection of the downhole equipment assembly to the lower completion assembly, the wet mate system comprising: a lower portion having a lower communication line; an upper portion having an upper communication line; a latch mechanism to selectively engage and disengage the upper portion from the lower portion; and a concentric union to enable connection of the lower and upper communication lines at a range of rotational orientations of the upper portion relative to the lower portion. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Wayne US 4,623,277 Nov. 18, 1986 Shaw McHugh Ringgenberg Stoesz US 2002/0050361 A1 US 2003/0148638 A1 US 2005/0194150 A1 US 2008/0047703 A1 May 2, 2002 Aug. 7, 2003 Sep. 8, 2005 Feb. 28, 2008 Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 3 Focal Technologies Corp – Subsea Oil and Gas Directory Information, http://www.subsea.org/company/listdetails.asp?companyid=309 (hereinafter “Focal Technologies”). Rejections Appellants request our review of the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ringgenberg. II. Claims 2, 4, 13, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringgenberg and Shaw. III. Claims 5, 7, 9, 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringgenberg and Stoesz. IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringgenberg and McHugh. V. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringgenberg, Shaw, and Stoesz. VI. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringgenberg, Shaw, Stoesz, and Wayne. OPINION Appellants group claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 together in contesting Rejection I. App. Br. 5-9. Thus, we decide the appeal of this rejection based on claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ringgenberg’s optical swivel is “a concentric union to enable connection of the lower and upper communication lines at a range of rotational orientations of the upper portion relative to the lower portion,” as called for in claim 1. See Ans. 3-4; Ringgenberg, para. [0029]. Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 4 Much of Appellants’ argument focuses on Ringgenberg’s rotationally orienting latch 74 used to align the connectors 24, 70, rather than on the releasable connection 44 relied upon by the Examiner, and thus does not address the rejection articulated by the Examiner. See App. Br. 5-6, 8; Reply Br. 5. Nevertheless, even assuming the releasable connection 44, on which the Examiner read the claimed latch mechanism, requires rotational alignment of the connectors 64 and 66, as Appellants’ argument suggests, Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection for the following reasons. Appellants’ argument is predicated on the position that Ringgenberg’s optical swivel “provides no teaching related to forming a connection without requiring the specific alignment described with respect to downhole connectors 24, 70.” App. Br. 6. However, as pointed out by the Examiner, claim 1 does not require forming a connection of the upper and lower portions without a specific alignment of the upper and lower portions. See Ans. 9. Rather, claim 1 requires “a concentric union to enable connection of the lower and upper communication lines at a range of rotational orientations of the upper portion relative to the lower portion.” An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “connection” is “the act of CONNECTING : the state of being connected.”1 Appellants’ Specification does not set forth a definition of “connection” or otherwise indicate a clear intent to use the term in a manner inconsistent with this meaning. By permitting the work string 42, or at least a portion thereof, to be rotated relative to the connector 64 while maintaining connectivity, 1 connection. (2013) In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connection. Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 5 Ringgenberg’s optical swivel enables the upper optical fiber section 62 to be connected or in a state of connection with the optical fiber section 68 in the lower portion (tubing assembly 34) at a range of rotational orientations of the upper portion (work string 42) relative to the lower portion. See Final Rej. 7; Ans. 8; Ringgenberg, para. [0029] (describing an optical swivel to permit at least a portion of the work string to rotate relative to the connector 64 and stating that a “suitable optical swivel is the Model 286 fiber optic rotary joint available from Focal Technologies Corporation of Nova Scotia, Canada”); Focal Technologies (stating “Focal Technologies’s rotary products, namely . . . fiber optic rotary joints . . . are typically used in applications . . . to maintain connectivity while one element of the system is rotating with respect to the other.”). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding that Ringgenberg’s optical swivel is a concentric union to enable the function called for in claim 1. Appellants argue that Ringgenberg “does not disclose or suggest a wet mate system which enables disconnection and reconnection of a downhole equipment assembly and a lower completion assembly in which the wet mate system comprises a concentric union . . . .” Reply Br. 6. The Examiner found that Ringgenberg discloses a wet mate system comprising, inter alia, a releasable latch 44, which enables the disconnection and reconnection function, and a rotary swivel, which, as discussed above, enables connection of the upper and lower communication lines at a range of rotational orientations of the upper portion and the lower portion, as called for in claim 1. Ans. 3-4. Thus, Appellants’ argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2011-008204 Application 12/056,643 6 For the above reasons, we sustain Rejection I (i.e., the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 1, as being anticipated by Ringgenberg). In contesting Rejections II-VI, Appellants rely on the same arguments presented in contesting Rejection I. App. Br. 9-13. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments likewise do not apprise us of error in Rejections II-VI. We thus sustain these rejections as well. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is affirmed. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation