Ex Parte JurenaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613227628 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/227,628 09/08/2011 Johnny Everett Jurena 111078-024300US 5881 102197 7590 12/22/2016 Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, P.C. 1200 Smith Street, 14th Floor Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): Patents @ chamberlainlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHNNY EVERETT JURENA Appeal 2014-009126 Application 13/227,628 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Cameron International Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal 2014-009126 Application 13/227,628 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a load-sharing ram packer for ram type blowout preventers. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A ram block, comprising: an upper ram arm; a lower ram arm; a packer channel; and a packer disposed at least partially within the packer channel and comprising a skeletal member; and wherein the skeletal member is configured to couple to the upper ram arm and the lower ram arm to oppose vertical separation of the ram arms. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Meynier US 3,817,326 Jun. 18, 1974 Judge US 7,703,739 B2 Apr. 27,2010 Weir US 2010/0243926 A1 Sept. 30, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 6—11, 13—18, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judge and Weir. Ans. 2—3. Claims 4, 12, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judge, Weir, and Meynier. Ans. 3. 2 Appeal 2014-009126 Application 13/227,628 OPINION Appellant argues that Judge does not disclose any component that “oppose[s] vertical separation of parts of the same block.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that “Weir does not teach any member in either ram block that opposes vertical separation of upper and lower ram block arms. . . . Weir fails to teach any function other than sealing by the components [identified as corresponding to the claimed packer].” Appeal Br. 12. Finally, Appellant argues “the claims recite that the packer includes the skeletal member and that both the packer and the skeletal member are in a packer channel. Judge’s load intensifying members 205 however are not incorporated in a packer or located in any packer channel.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner answers that Judge discloses a packer (sealing members 208 and 209) and a packer channel. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that the intensifying member 205 of Judge corresponds to the claimed skeletal member. Id. Although the Examiner never identifies what part of Judge corresponds to the claimed “packer channel,” he finds that “packer channel” “include[s] both the seal groove and the cavity in which the modified skeletal member would be located as seal will flow [sic] into that cavity when the ram blocks are in a closed condition.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Judge discloses one ram arm (202, Fig. 4) that comprises a slot to receive a longitudinal protrusion of the skeletal member (205, Fig. 4) arranged to oppose vertical separation of the two rams. Id. To address the fact that Judge does not disclose an upper arm and a lower arm in the same ram block, the Examiner turns to Weir. The Examiner finds that Weir teaches “a blowout preventer with ram socketing,” and “a ram block with an upper and a lower arm and a skeletal member to 3 Appeal 2014-009126 Application 13/227,628 couple the arms for better sealing.” Ans. 2. The Examiner provides a drawing showing the parts of Weir corresponding to the claimed “upper arm” and “lower arm.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that: Weir teaches rams comprising upper and lower arms that are coupled together with a tongue and groove connection. The Examiner maintains that adapting the Weir teaching ... to the load strengthening structure disclosed by Judge et al. would result in an integral structure that prevents] vertical separation of the ram blocks thereby resulting in a better seal. The Examiner further maintains that an integral structure that prevents vertical separation of the ram blocks would necessarily prevent the vertical separation of the upper and lower arms. Id. at 4. We agree with Appellant that none of the art shows a ram block having upper and lower arms which are coupled by a packer which includes a skeletal member configured to oppose vertical separation of the ram arms. No combination of the features of Judge and Weir results in the structure claimed by Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 6—11, 13—18, and 21—23. Appellant argued that dependent claims 4, 12, 19, and 20 are patentable for the same reasons as the preceding claims and that the additional reference cited by the Examiner (Meynier) does not cure the deficiency of the rejection of the claims from which these claims depend. Because we find the claims from which these claims depend are patentable, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 12, 19, and 20. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6— 23 is reversed. 4 Appeal 2014-009126 Application 13/227,628 REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation