Ex Parte Juda et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 7, 201311609585 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN DAVID JUDA and EUGENE CHARLES CHAUVIERE III ____________________ Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES A. TARTAL, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The rejected claims are directed to a ram-type blowout preventer, as well as a method of actuating such a preventer, which the Specification describes as having the ability to seal in two directions without using a dedicated test tool to seal in one of the directions (Spec. [0017]). Claims 1, 10, 13, and 17 are the sole independent claims. EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims under appeal. 1. A ram-type blowout preventer, comprising: a body; a vertical bore through the body; a horizontal bore through the body intersecting the vertical bore; a pair of ram blocks disposed in the horizontal bore on opposite sides of the body, wherein the ram blocks are configured to move along the horizontal bore to have controlled lateral movement to and from the vertical bore; 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 12, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed October 26, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 18, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 20, 2011). Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 3 a seal carrier disposed about the vertical bore between the body and adjacent to the horizontal bore; and a sealing device positioned between the body and the seal carrier, wherein the seal carrier is configured to be displaced along an axis of the vertical bore such that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a predetermined range along the vertical bore, and the sealing device is positioned further away from the axis of the vertical bore than a top seal of the at least one of the pair of ram blocks such that when a pressure from above the pair of ram blocks is applied, a net force is generated that pushes the seal carrier towards the pair of ram blocks. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parks (US 4,444,404, iss. Apr. 24, 1984) in view of Estes (US 3,078,865, iss. Feb. 26, 1963). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Parks in view of Estes. For the reasons discussed in detail below, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that the references teach or suggest “the seal carrier is configured to be displaced along an axis of the vertical bore such that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a predetermined range along the vertical bore,” as required by claim 1. Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 4 Specifically, the Examiner states that Parks teaches “a seal carrier disposed about the vertical bore between the body and adjacent to the horizontal bore[,] and a sealing device (o-ring seal positioned in the corner formed on the seal carrier between the seal carrier and body 11 ) positioned between the body and the seal carrier (figure 1)” (Ans. 4). The Examiner concedes that Parks “does not disclose the seal carrier to be configured to be displaced along an axis of the vertical bore such that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a predetermined range” (Ans. 4). The Examiner relies on Estes to remedy this deficiency, stating that Estes “teach[es] the use of a seal carrier (72) that is movable along an axis of a bore (12) through a body (10) that is pressed against a movable member (20) such that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a predetermined range” (id.). The Examiner further states it would have been obvious . . . to provide the seal carrier of Parks . . . as a movable seal carrier as taught by Estes . . . in order to permit the build up of line pressure between the end wall and the axial outer wall of the seal carrier to cause the seal carrier into a sealing engagement with the movable member such that a sealing member located between the movable member and the seal carrier can compensate for most minor scratches on the sealing surface of the movable member (Ans. 4-5, italics added). The Examiner relies on Estes to provide this rationale (Ans. 4). In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” 550 Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 5 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As Appellants point out, the Examiner’s rationale for combining Parks with Estes “merely paraphrases language from Estes[,] providing no rationale for modifying Parks” (App. Br. 23). We note that Parks and Estes teach different valves having different structures, which seal in different ways. Neither valve is concerned with sealing in two directions. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Parks does teach a seal carrier as stated by the Examiner, Parks does not disclose that the seal carrier is configured to move, and in fact the figures of Parks show that the seal carrier is disposed between and in contact with both the housing 11 and the ram block 64, thereby preventing any movement of the seal carrier. At most, the Examiner’s statement provides a rationale as to why one may use a sealing member between the seal carrier and the housing 11 of Parks, which may compensate for minor scratches on the sealing surface of either or both of the seal carrier and housing 11 and thereby provide a tight seal. However, this rationale does not address why one would replace the seal carrier of Parks, which appears to be immovably disposed between the housing 11 and the ram block 64, with a movable seal carrier from Estes. Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently articulated a reason with rational underpinnings for taking a movable seal carrier from Estes, which does not utilize ram blocks or similar structure, and using such a movable seal carrier in place of the immovable seal carrier that is used to seal against ram blocks in Parks. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 10, 13, and 17 include similar limitations as independent claim 1, and claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 depend Appeal 2011-007896 Application 11/609,585 6 from the independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 10, 13, and 17, and we do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 is REVERSED. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation