Ex Parte McKeon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13555012 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2017)

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.
SUR-031881
(CMRN:0207)
6060
EXAMINER
LAMBE, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/555,012 07/20/2012 Michael Anthony McKeon
64833 7590 08/28/2017
FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
08/28/2017 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ANTHONY McKEON, DECLAN ELLIOTT, and
FINBARR WILLIAMS EVANS
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Anthony McKeon et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11, 13—
16, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cameron International
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 12 is cancelled, and claims 17—19 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. A system, comprising:
a flow control system configured to couple to a wellhead
system, wherein the flow control system comprises:
a flow control device comprising a housing, with a first
flow path fluidly coupled to a second flow path through the
housing from an inlet to an outlet, wherein the second fluid path
is angled with respect to the first flow' path;
a flow control element substantially parallel with the first
flow path and configured to control the flow' of fluid through the
housing by moving axially in and out of the first flow' path; and
an actuator mounting assembly coupled to the flow control
device, wherein the actuator mounting assembly is configured to
selectively mount one of a manual actuator and a powered
actuator to actuate the flow control element of the flow' control
device.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Chatufale US 6,659,419 B2 Dec. 9, 2003
McGee US 7,025,140 B2 Apr. 11,2006
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 8—11, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by McGee. Final Act. 2—3.
II. Claims 3—7 and 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McGee and Chatufale. Id. at 2—5.
2
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8—10, and 21
The Examiner finds that McGee discloses, inter alia, an actuator
mounting assembly coupled to a flow control device and configured to
selectively mount one of a manual actuator and a powered actuator. Final
Act. 2 (citing McGee, Figs, 1, la). More particularly, the Examiner finds
that McGee’s manual actuator or powered actuator “is connected to [a] flow
control element (needle [20])” and “[t]his connection is via an actuator
mounting assembly,” Ans. 2, The Examiner further finds that “flow control
element [needle 20] is connected to the flow control device [that comprises
housing 23],” such that “the actuator mounting assembly is coupled to the
flow control device.” Id.
Appellants argue that McGee discloses a direct connection between
the actuator (e.g., hand wheel or hydraulic choke actuator 90) and the needle
20, and that the actuator does not couple to the bonnet 18 or housing 23 of
McGee’s flow control device. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 4. According to
Appellants, McGee, thus, lacks an actuator mounting assembly that is (i)
coupled to the flow' control device (Appeal Br. 5) and (ii) separate from the
claimed flow control element and claimed flow control device (Reply Br. 4),
First, the Examiner has adequately explained how McGee’s actuator is
indirectly coupled to the flow control device (housing 23) through an
actuator mounting assembly (which is considered to be the “connection”
between the actuator and needle 20), considering that needle 20 is connected
in turn to housing 23 through bonnet 18. Ans. 2. In our viewy the claims do
3
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
not preclude an indirect coupling between the actuator mounting assembly
and the flow control device in order to meet the language of the claim.
Second, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s analysis fails to
identify an actuator mounting assembly that is separate from the claimed
flow control element (needle 20) and the claimed flow control device
(housing 23). That is, we do not view the Examiner as suggesting that the
actuator mounting assembly and the flow control element (needle 20) are the
same structure or element. Rather, we view the Examiner as suggesting that
the actuator mounting assembly is the “connection” between the actuator
and the needle 20. Although Appellants suggest that such a connection is a
connection” (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted)), there appears to be
components at least partially implicated in this connection,
including at least, for example, portions of bonnet 18, Accordingly, the
Examiner has identified an actuator mounting assembly that is coupled to the
flow control device and configured to selectively mount an actuator, and that
is separate from the claimed flow control element and the claimed flow
control device.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner did not err
in finding that McGee anticipates claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McGee. We also sustain
the rejection of claims 2, 8—10, and 21, which depend therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McGee and for which Appellants provide
no additional argument. See Appeal Br. 5.
Independent claim II and dependent claim 16
The Examiner finds that McGee discloses a modular mounting system
comprising “at least one retainer (18) to block movement of a flow control
4
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
element of the flow control device (20) during a change between a manual
actuator and a powered actuator.” Final Act. 3. More particularly, the
Examiner finds that McGee’s bonnet 18 “acts as a retainer to block
movement of the flow control element (needle 20).” Ans. 3. The Examiner
continues that “[wjjhile the needle is in the bonnet, it is restrained from
moving in a vertical motion” and “[furthermore, it is restrained from
horizontal translation; the only way the needle can move horizontally is [to]
be rotated.” Id. The Examiner maintains that “[tjhere is no language in
claim 11 limiting [in] what direction the movement must be blocked.” Id.
Appellants argue that “needle 20 is able to freely thread into and out
of the bonnet [18].” Appeal Br, 6; see also Reply Br. 6. Even though we
agree with Appellants that needle 20 maintains the ability to move
horizontally via rotation even while needle 20 is in the bonnet, we are not
persuaded that claim 11 must be interpreted to require the retainer to block
any and all movement of the flow control element. The Examiner has made
undisputed findings that bonnet 18 blocks vertical movement of needle 20
and prevents horizontal translational movement of needle 20, and Appellants
have not persuaded us that this blocking of movement of needle 20 fails to
meet the language of claim 11 as currently drafted.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner did not err
in finding that McGee anticipates claim 11, and we sustain the rejection of
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McGee. We also
sustain the rejection of claim 16, which depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by McGee, and for which Appellants provide no
additional argument. See Appeal Br. 6.
5
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
Rejection II
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, and 15
Appellants provide no additional argument regarding the patentability
of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, and 15. Accordingly, for the same
reasons set forth in connection with Rejection I, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McGee and Chatufale.
Claims 5 and 14
Appellants present separate arguments regarding the patentability of
dependent claims 5 and 14. Appeal Br. 8—12. Dependent claims 5 and 14
require a bonnet, a first retainer, and a second retainer, wherein the second
retainer and the bonnet are configured to selectively capture a mounting
bracket of the powered actuator between axially opposing surfaces of the
second retainer and the bonnet. Id. at 13—14, 15 (Claims App.). The
Examiner points to McGee’s bonnet 18 and identifies the first and second
ends of the bonnet as retainers, and finds that the back end of the bonnet
secures the mounting of the actuator. Final Act. 3, 4 (citing Fig. 1).
Appellants argue that McGee lacks a second retainer and is not able to
selectively capture a mounting bracket between axially opposing surfaces of
a second retainer and the bonnet. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner responds
with an annotated figure of McGee’s Figure 1 including a circle around the
structure that the Examiner considers to be the “part retaining the right end
of the bonnet” (i.e., the second retainer, configured with the bonnet, to
selectively capture a mounting bracket of the powered actuator). Ans. 4.
Appellants reply that the Examiner has failed to provide any objective
evidence that the identified structure “is a retainer rather than a lubricant
6
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
passage (e.g., grease port) or other structure.” Reply Br. 8. The Examiner
must support factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s failure to provide objective
evidence precludes the Examiner from meeting the preponderance of the
evidence standard in connection with finding the identified structure to be a
second retainer. We determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that the identified structure constitutes a
second retainer. Appellants also reply that “McGee does not teach or
suggest a mounting bracket of the hydraulic choke actuator 90, much less a
mounting bracket that is captured between axially opposing surfaces of the
bonnet 18 and the [structure identified as the second retainer].” Reply Br. 8.
This argument does not persuade us of error in that the claim, as currently
drafted, merely requires the second retainer and the bonnet be “configured to
selectively capture a mounting bracket,” rather than positively reciting a
mounting bracket of the powered actuator and requiring the second retainer
and bonnet to actually capture a mounting bracket.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner did not err
in concluding that McGee and Chatufale renders obvious the subject matter
of dependent claims 5 and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGee and
Chatufale.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 8—11, 16, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McGee is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2016-002514
Application 13/555,012
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3—7 and 13—15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGee and Chatufale 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8