Ex Parte Kotrla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13141318 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/141,318 06/21/2011 Johnnie Kotrla
64833 7590 09/26/2016
FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
OTD-031366US
CMRN:0097
CONFIRMATION NO.
4400
EXAMINER
GRAY, GEORGE STERLING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHNNIE KOTRLA, ROSS STEVENSON, and
VALLIE HODGES
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LISA M. GUIJT, JASON W. MELVIN, and GORDON D, KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of
claims 1-3, 8-17, 19-22, and 25-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Cameron International Corp. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a multi-pressure flange connection. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for a mineral extraction system, comprising:
a multi-pressure accumulator flange, comprising:
a first set of fasteners comprising four fasteners in a first
pattern for attachment in a first pressure rating, wherein
the first pattern comprises a first rectangular pattern or a
first cross-shaped pattern;
a second set of fasteners comprising four fasteners in a second
pattern, wherein the second pattern comprises a second
rectangular pattern or a second cross-shaped pattern, the
first pattern is perpendicular to the second pattern, the
second set of fasteners is selectively combinable with the
first set of fasteners in a third pattern for attachment in a
second pressure rating, and the second pressure rating is
higher than the first pressure rating, wherein the fasteners
are not uniformly spaced between the first and second
patterns;
a recess configured to receive a sealing component; and
a receptacle configured to receive a pipe fitting.
Appeal Br. 42 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 2
1. Claims 1, 2, and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith (US 5,492,373, iss. Feb. 20, 1996)
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, of claims 11 and 24, and the rejections under§ 103(a) of claims
5-7, 18, 23, and 24, and therefore, these claims are not subject to a standing
rejection. Ans. 14-15. Claim 4 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
2
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
("Huber")3 and Wood (US 4,073,402, iss. Feb. 14, 1978). Final
Act. 4-7.
2. Claims 3, 13-17, 19-21, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huber, Wood, and Martin (US
7,424,917 B2, iss. Sept. 16, 2008). Final Act. 7-9 (claim 3), 10-15
(claims 13-17, 19-21, and 25-27).
3. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Huber, Wood, Martin, and Stogner (US 5,387,089, iss. Feb. 7,
1995). Final Act. 16-19.
DISCUSSION
System claims
Claim 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1, finding that Huber discloses most
limitations but "does not explicitly address the number and arrangement of
fasteners or pressure ratings." Final Act. 4. For those aspects of the
fasteners and attachment, the Examiner relies on Wood and finds that Wood
discloses multiple patterns of fasteners within the twelve total fasteners
shown in Figure 12. Id. at 4-5. In particular, the Examiner identifies two
rectangular patterns of four bolts each within the twelve total positions and
reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art
to modify the Huber device to include the first and second
rectangular patterns of Wood in order to make a desired
3 The Examiner refers to Smith as "Huber," as it was assigned to the J.M.
Huber Corporation. See Final Act. 4. For consistency, we maintain the
designation of Huber.
3
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
configuration of eight fasteners and to then use the Huber flange
for attachment to an accumulator using eight bolts in order to
address design requirements requiring a first pressure rating, or
to instead use only the first set of four fasteners in the first
rectangular pattern in order to address design requirements
requiring a lower pressure rating.
Id. at 6. The Examiner further reasons that the combination would provide
the benefits that "a user need only acquire and/or stock one type of flange to
address both of the anticipated pressure rating requirements and to reduce
installation time and required materials when using the flange for the
accumulator installation involving the smaller pressure rating." Id.
Appellants challenge the rejection, arguing primarily that because
Wood teaches the use of all twelve bolts, it fails to teach two patterns of
bolts "wherein the fasteners are not uniformly spaced between the first and
second patterns." See Appeal Br. 12-15 (emphasis omitted). We do not
agree. The broadest-reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not exclude a
flange with additional bolts, like the flange in Wood's Figure 12, because
such a flange nonetheless includes the claimed first and second sets of
fasteners. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-
73 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reasoning that an open claim transition permits a higher
number of elements than claimed).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not provided an adequate,
objective reason for the modification of Huber. See Appeal Br. 15-16. In
our view, Appellants' assertions do not identify an error in the rejection. In
the statement of rationale described above, the Examiner provides
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
4
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
2006 ). Thus, Appellants' argument regarding the Examiner's rationale for
the combinations based on Wood fail to apprise us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 8-12
Claims 2 and 8-12 depend from claim 1, and Appellants argue that
the rejections of the dependent claims should be reversed for the same
reasons as the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Because we do not agree
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, we also sustain the rejections of
claims 2 and 8-12.
Claims 3, 13-17, and 19-22
Rejecting claim 3, the Examiner finds that a person of skill would
have looked to Martin "to use the same flange to provide attachment
capabilities for components having more than one pressure rating." Final
Act. 9. Rejecting claims 13-17 and 19-21, the Examiner finds that a person
of skill would have made the combination for the same reasons regarding
claim 1 and claim 3. Final Act. 10-14. The Examiner further finds that
Martin teaches "a subsea accumulator bank" associated with a number of
"miner extraction system components" where "some components are
capable of high pressure applications while some components are
constructed for lower pressure use." Id. at 12. Rejecting claim 22, the
Examiner additionally relies on Stogner, which the Examiner finds teaches a
flanged accumulator connection, and reasons that a person of skill would
have looked to Stogner "in order to provide an additional accumulator
connection configuration." Final Act. 18.
To challenge the rejections of claims 3, 13-17, and 19-22, Appellants
rely on the same arguments made for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16-17, 21-24,
5
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
26-29, 34-37 (arguing that Wood discloses only uniform spacing); id. at 24-
25, 29-30, 37-38 (arguing the Examiner has not provided adequate
reasoning for the modification or combination). As we have already
determined those arguments unpersuasive and concluded that the Examiner
provided adequate reasoning for the rejections, those arguments do not
apprise us of error in the rejections. To the extent Appellants criticize the
Examiner's stated reasons that a person of skill would have incorporated
teachings from the additional references (Martin and Stogner), we conclude
that the reasons stated above have rational underpinning and thus adequately
support the rejections.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 3, 13-1 7, and 19-22.
Method claims (Claims 25-27)
Claim 25 is a method claim and recites a series of steps including
"coupling a third set of fasteners with the second component" "wherein the
third set of fasteners comprises both the first set and the second set of
fasteners," "wherein the first and second sets of fasteners are arranged in
respective first and second patterns, [and] the fasteners are not uniformly
spaced between the first and second patterns." Appeal Br. 47 (Claims App.).
The Examiner reasons that the combination of Huber, Wood, and
Martin teaches the limitations of claim 25. Final Act. 14-15. Appellants
argue that the Examiner's findings are not supported by the references, for
much the same reasons as argued for the system claims. Appeal Br. 25-30.
The Examiner reasons that the asserted combination "discloses 12 bolts
capable of being used in many patterns, so the required structure is
disclosed, and it is not relevant that the reference does not disclose a
particular use." Ans. 16. We do not agree. Rather, we agree with
6
Appeal2014-008433
Application 13/141,318
Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show that the prior art taught the
use of less than the full complement of bolts in Wood. Although a claim to a
flange with a given set of bolts may still read on a flange with a greater
number of bolts, the same is not true for a claim that further requires the act
of using a set of bolts having a nonuniform spacing, as does claim 25. The
Examiner has not provided evidence that the prior art taught making a flange
connection with nonuniformly spaced bolts, as required by claim 25.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25, or of claims 26 or
27, which depend from claim 25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 8-17,
and 19-22 are affirmed; the rejection of claims 25-27 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7