Ex Parte Zastresek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13271611 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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.
13/271,611 10/12/2011 Jiri Zastresek 012436-0800 1058
107261 7590 06/01/2017
Porter HeHaes; T T P
EXAMINER
1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
GRAY, GEORGE STERLING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
patmail@porterhedges.com
dforinash @ porterhedges .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIRI ZASTRESEK and RICK MECHAM
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jiri Zastresek and Rick Mecham (Appellants)1 seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated August 13, 2014 (hereinafter “Final Act.”), rejecting
claims 1-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify National Oilwell Varco, L.P. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 3 (January 13, 2015) [hereinafter “Br.”].
2 Claims 21-23 are not rejected, but are objected to as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim. Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to cores obtained from
subterranean formations and “methods and apparatus for retaining a core
within a coring tool.” Spec., para. 2. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below, with the pertinent limitation shown in italics.
1. A core catcher comprising:
a housing having an inner wall defining an axial bore
through the housing;
a retention member disposed within the housing;
a first hinge tab coupled to the retention member;
a first hinge barrel defined by the first hinge tab and the
inner wall of the housing;
a first closure member having a slot that is engaged with
the first hinge tab and a pivot edge at least partially disposed
within the first hinge barrel; and
a sleeve slidably disposed within the housing,
wherein the first closure member has an open position
where the first closure member is disposed in an annulus between
the sleeve and the housing, and a closed position where the first
closure member is disposed at least partially across the axial bore
of the housing.
Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 8 recites a coring tool
comprising, inter alia, a core catcher body and a retention member disposed
within the core catcher body, “wherein the retention member includes a first
hinge tab disposed proximate to the inner wall of the core catcher body as to
define a first hinge barrel formed by the first hinge tab and the inner wall of
2
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
the core catcher body.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Independent claim 16
recites a method for retaining a core in a core barrel comprising, inter alia:
rotatably coupling a closure member to a retention member by
engaging a slot through the closure member with a hinge tab that
is coupled to the retention member, wherein the retention
member is disposed within a housing so that the hinge tab forms
a hinge barrel with a wall of the housing.
Id. at 24 (emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Final Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Knighton (US 4,606,416, issued August 19,
1986) and Roy (US 2005/0034273 Al, issued February 17, 2005).
ANALYSIS
As shown supra, each of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 calls for a
hinge barrel defined by a hinge tab and a wall. Appellants argue that the
combination of Knighton and Roy does not teach the claimed hinge barrel.
Br. 17-19.
Figures 2 and 2A of Appellants’ disclosure are reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
FIG. 2
ss
83- A/
A
-44
■48
■48
■-S3
28
3
FIG. 2A
Figure 2 is a partial sectional view of a core catcher in an open
position. Spec., para. 11. Figure 2A is a detail sectional view of a portion of
the core catcher shown in Figure 2. Id. at para. 12. The Specification
describes, with reference to Figures 2 and 2A:
[T]he retention member 26 includes one or more hinge tabs 50
that form a hinge barrel 52 with the inner wall 23 of the lower
housing 24. Each hinge tab 50 is inserted into a slot 44 through
a closure member 28. One edge of the slot 44 includes a curved
pivot edge 46 that can slide along the curved surface of the hinge
tab 50. The interface of the hinge tab 50 and the slot 44 creates
a pivot axis 48 that can be located at a maximum distance from
the centerline of the axial bore 21.
Spec., para. 25. As shown in these Figures, hinge barrel 52 is an open space
within which a portion of closure member is housed. The open space that
4
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
comprises hinge barrel 52 is bounded on one side by inner surface of hinge
tab 50 and on the other side by inner wall 23 of lower housing 24.
By contrast, the proposed modification of Knighton with the hinge 24
of Roy, as shown in annotated Figure 12 of Roy, would not include a hinge
barrel bounded by a hinge tab and a wall of the housing. Annotated Figure
12 is reproduced below:
Figure 12 of Roy, as annotated by the Examiner in Final Office
Action, shows the Examiner’s proposed placement of Roy’s hinge in the
housing of Knighton. Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner:
[I]t can be seen that the Knighton housing forms part of the hinge
barrel (where it closes aperture 44, the barrel being anything
inside of 30a, just as in Applicant’s invention) without modifying
30$
36ft
FIS. 12
5
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
the Roy 30a structure, as shown by the following wherein the
Knighton housing is shown against the Roy hinge.
Id. at 3. Appellants note that the Examiner defines the hinge barrel as being
“anything inside of 30a” and argue that “under the Examiner’s
construction^] the Knighton housing ‘closes’ the aperture 44 but is not in
any way ‘inside of 30a’ and therefore, under the Examiner’s own definition
[of ‘hinge barrel’] the Knighton housing is not a part of the ‘hinge barrel.’”
Br. 18-19. We agree.
The “hinge barrel” in Roy is formed entirely by curled top end 30a of
second hinge plate 30. Locking lugs 40 of curled top end 30a extend
through lug apertures 44 of second hinge plate 30. Roy, para. 49. Were
Roy’s hinge used in place of the hinge mechanism of Knighton in the
manner proposed by the Examiner, Knighton’s housing would not define
part of the open space, i.e., the hinge barrel, within which a portion of the
first closure member (i.e., first hinge plate 28) is disposed. As such, the
combined teachings of Knighton and Roy do not render obvious the “hinge
barrel” as called for in each of independent claims 1, 8, and 16. For this
reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16
and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Knighton and Roy.
6
Appeal 2015-006458
Application 13/271,611
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Knighton and Roy is reversed.
REVERSED
7