Ex Parte Zastresek et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201713271611 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation