Ex Parte Vick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2008

11194197 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES D. VICK JR.
____________________

Appeal 2008-0614
Application 11/194,197
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: April 14, 2008
____________________

Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
2
3
4
5
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the final
rejection of claims 12 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Sizer (U.S. Patent 3,731,742). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2008-0614
Application 11/194,197

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Claims 12 and 97 each recite a method of actuating a safety valve
including the steps of “displacing an actuator member of the safety valve”
and “translating displacement of the actuator member to displacement of an
operating member, . . . a magnetic coupling being used to fix displacement
of the operating member to displacement of the actuator member.” The sole
issue in this appeal is whether Sizer discloses an actuator member, an
operating member and a magnetic coupling which perform these functions.
We REVERSE.

Sizer discloses an electrically-controlled safety valve for
interconnection with the tubing string of a well. Sizer’s Fig. 15 shows a
valve including a tubular piston member 485 capable of sliding along the
axis of the valve. The piston member normally holds a ball closure member
410 in an open position in which well fluids may flow through the piston
member toward the well head. A compression spring 482 biases the piston
member upwardly away from the ball closure member. Detent balls 425
normally hold the piston member against the bias of the compression spring
in a lower position in which the ball closure member is turned to the open
position. (Sizer, col. 19, ll. 13-47).
A locking detent sleeve 429 surrounds a portion of the piston member
485 and slides along the same axis. Another compression spring 431 biases
the locking detent sleeve downwardly into a position where an inner surface
of the locking detent sleeve retains the ball detents 425 in engagement
against the piston member. A sleeve 436 of soft iron fits into an annular
groove 437 in the outer surface of the locking detent sleeve. The sleeve of
2
Appeal 2008-0614
Application 11/194,197

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
soft iron faces an electromagnetic solenoid 440. (Sizer, col. 19, l. 47 – col.
20, l. 3).
When an electric sensor switch 450 is closed, magnetic flux generated
by the electromagnetic solenoid 440 draws the locking detent sleeve 429
upwardly against the bias of the compression spring 431 so as to align an
annular recess 430 in the inner surface of the locking detent sleeve 429 with
the detent balls 425. This alignment permits the detent balls to disengage
from the piston member 485. The disengagement of the detent balls from
the piston member allows the compression spring 482 to slide the piston
upwardly away from the ball closure member 410. The ball closure member
then rotates to close the valve. (Sizer, col. 20, ll. 9-20).
The Examiner finds that Sizer’s detent locking sleeve 429 is an
actuator member; that Sizer’s tubular piston member 485 is an operating
member; and that the displacement of the operating member is fixed to
displacement of the actuator member because “[t]he upward movement of
[the detent locking sleeve] causes the upward movement of the [tubular
piston member] . . . .” (Ans. 7). The only magnetic structure described by
Sizer is the combination of the electromagnetic solenoid 440 acting on the
sleeve 436 of soft iron. This structure induces the detent locking sleeve 429
to move relative to the housing 480 of the valve. We agree with the
Appellants (Appeal Br. 8-9) that Sizer does not describe the use of a
magnetic coupling “to fix displacement of the operating member [the detent
locking sleeve] to displacement of the actuating member [the piston
member].”
The Examiner has suggested no other structure described by Sizer
which might perform this function. On the record before us, the Appellants
3
Appeal 2008-0614
Application 11/194,197

1
2
3
4
5
6
have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 97 under
section 102(b) as being anticipated by Sizer.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 97.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
REVERSED

JRG

SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 997
ROCKWALL, TX 75087
4