Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

11359071 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NAMHYO KIM
____________

Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 17, 18, 22, 24-30, and 56-62. App. Br. 5. Claims 1-16, 19-21, 23,
31-44, and 51-55 are cancelled, and claims 45-50 and 63 are allowed. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 17, 26, 57 and 60 are independent. Claim 57 is reproduced
below:
57. A gas lift valve for use in a wellbore, comprising:
a mandrel having a wall and a longitudinal bore; and
a valve assembly coupled to the mandrel, eccentrically
disposed relative to a centerline of the mandrel bore, and
comprising:
an inlet port in fluid communication with an
exterior of the gas lift valve;
an outlet port in fluid communication with the
mandrel bore;
a housing having a wall and a longitudinal bore,
the wall having an inner surface;
a plug disposed in the housing bore, the plug
having an outer surface;
a venturi flow path formed between the inner and
outer surfaces, wherein:
the venturi flow path has a converging inlet,
a throat, and a diverging outlet,
one of the plug and the housing are
longitudinally moveable relative to the other of the
plug and the housing between:
a first position where the throat has a
first area, and
a second position where the throat has
a second area which is smaller than the first
area and greater than zero; and
an actuator operable to move the movable one of
the plug and the housing between the positions in
response to fluid or electrical communication with a
remote control device.

Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 17, 18, 22, 24-30, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by de Almeida (US 6,568,473 B2; iss. May 27,
2003).
Claims 56-59 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over de Almeida and Jansen (US 6,250,602 B1; iss. Jun. 26,
2001).
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over de Almeida, Jansen, and Vinegar (US 6,715,550 B2; iss. Apr. 6, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Claims 17, 18, 22, 24-30, and 60 as anticipated by de Almeida
Appellant argues claims 17, 18, 22, 24, and 25, claims 26-30, and
claim 60 as separate groups. App. Br. 13-14. We select claims 17, 26, and
60 as representative claims of each group.
Appellant argues that de Almeida discloses a gas lift valve having a
fixed venturi throat to regulate an injection rate of the lifting gas and does
not disclose movement between two partially open positions in response to
pressure differentials sufficient for critical flow through the throat, as recited
in claim 17. App. Br. 13. Appellant also argues that de Almeida does not
disclose sonic flow injection through a valve having at least three open
positions as recited in claims 26 and 60. App. Br. 13. Appellant further
argues that de Almeida only discusses open and closed positions of the
valve, never an intermediate position. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2.
These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that de Almeida discloses a gas lift valve with a venturi flow path
and plug that move relative to one another between a plurality of positions.
Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071

4
Ans. 3-4, 6. In this regard, de Almeida discloses that Figure 4 illustrates a
gas lift valve 34 in its open position and that when flow from the interior of
the body 13 reverses, the central body venturi 40, which corresponds to the
claimed plug, is displaced towards the seat 42 of the venturi channel, and
“eventually the first diverging upper segment of the central body venturi 40
will be seated against seat 42, thereby promoting a blocking off which
precludes such reverse flow from reaching annulus 6.” Col. 9, ll. 20-26; fig.
4 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that de Almeida discloses
a plug (venturi body 40) that moves between multiple positions, including an
intermediate position, in response to a pressure differential between inlet and
outlet ports. See Ans. 6. We also agree with the Examiner that de Almeida
discloses sonic flow through this multiple position valve. In this regard, de
Almeida discloses that pressure differentials can cause the gas flow rate to
increase until pressure reaches a critical pressure value at which point the
flow reaches the speed of sound in the venturi throat 18 and this sonic flow
is maintained even as the pressure differential changes, which would change
the position of the venturi body 40 as discussed supra. Col. 7, ll. 30-43.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in these Examiner findings.
We sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, 22, 24-30, and 60.
Claims 56-59 and 62 as unpatentable over de Almeida and Jansen
Independent claim 57 recites a gas lift valve with a plug and housing
that form a venturi flow path and move relative to one another between first
and second positions, and an actuator operable to move the plug or housing
between the first and second positions in response to fluid or electrical
communication with a remote control device. The Examiner found that de
Almeida discloses the claimed subject matter except an actuator that moves
Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071

5
the movable member. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Jansen teaches that
it is known to use an electronically remote controlled actuator 30 to move a
movable member 26 of a venturi valve 10 for controlling fluid flow, and
determined that it would have been obvious to modify de Almeida in this
manner so that the movable member of the venturi valve can be selectively
actuated by an operator or remote location and provide greater accuracy in
the positioning of the valve. Ans. 5, 7.
Appellant argues that de Almeida teaches away from the actuator
recited in claims 56, 57, and 62 by lamenting the unreliability of check
valves that have moving parts and touting the single component construction
of the venturi check valve. App. Br. 14. Appellant also argues that adding
Jansen’s actuator to de Almeida’s venturi check valve would negate the
check valve function. App. Br. 15. These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the Examiner is not proposing to replace de Almeida’s venturi check
valve with a check valve that has moving parts. The Examiner proposes to
modify de Almeida to use a remotely controlled actuator as taught by Jansen
and Appellant has not explained how such modification would destroy the
check valve function of de Almeida. Nor has Appellant explained how an
actuator that controls the position of the venturi body, when desired, would
prevent the venturi body of de Almeida from operating to seal against the
seat 42 as disclosed in de Almeida. Appellant’s arguments amount to an
individual attack on the references where the Examiner has relied on their
combined teachings. Moreover, we are not persuaded that de Almeida’s
discussion of the relative merits of different check valves disparages,
criticizes or discourages the proposed modification that the Examiner sets
forth in the Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 56-59 and 62.
Appeal 2011-007673
Application 11/359,071

6
Claim 61 as unpatentable over de Almeida, Jansen, and Vinegar
Claim 61 depends from claim 57 and recites that the actuator is
hydraulic. The Examiner found that Vinegar discloses a downhole gas lift
valve using hydraulics and determined that it would have been obvious to
use a hydraulically powered actuator on the modified device of de Almeida
and Jansen as an equivalent means of actuating a controlled valve. Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that de Almeida teaches away from Vinegar because
Vinegar discloses a separate check valve and de Almeida disparages the use
of a separate check valve and touts an integral venturi check valve. App. Br.
15; Reply Br. 3. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner
proposes to provide hydraulic powered actuation, as taught by Vinegar, to
power de Almeida’s integral venturi check valve rather than replacing de
Almeida’s venturi valve with the check valve of Vinegar. See Ans. 7. We
sustain the rejection of claim 61.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 17, 18, 22, 24-30, and 56-62.

AFFIRMED

mls