Gregory James Alexander. Andrigo

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

14694299 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
14/694,299 04/23/2015 Gregory James Alexander Andrigo 047992-0458289 7530
909 7590 12/31/2019
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
SAYRE, JAMES G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY JAMES ALEXANDER ANDRIGO
____________

Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5–23.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Top-Co, Inc.
Br. 1 (dated June 26, 2017).
2 Claims 2–4 are cancelled. Br. 35 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “generally relates to wellbore cementing
equipment, and in particular to plug and dart systems deployable as high-
pressure fluid barriers in wellbore cementing processes.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A wellbore sealing system comprising:
a bottom plug defining a bore therein;
a top plug defining a bore therein; and
a dart retained in the top plug via a shear ring, and being
deployable through the bore defined in the top plug and the
bore defined in the bottom plug to sealingly engage float
equipment abutting the bottom plug.
Br. 35 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Final Act. 4.
Claims 1, 5–14, 16, and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Budde3 and Laurel4. Final Act. 5.
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Budde, Laurel, and Coone5. Final Act. 8.
Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Budde, Laurel, and Giroux6. Final Act. 8.

3 Budde, US 2015/0101801 A1, published Apr. 16, 2015.
4 Laurel et al., US 2010/0294503 A1, published Nov. 25, 2010.
5 Coone et al., US 5,234,052, issued Aug. 10, 1993.
6 Giroux et al., US 6,082,451, issued July 4, 2000.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 18 and 20 as indefinite
Claims 18 and 20 both depend from claim 10 and recite the same
limitation, “substantially maintaining pressurization of the wellbore by a
seal between the dart and the float equipment.” Br. 36–37 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The Examiner determines that the term “substantially”
renders claims 18 and 20 indefinite because there is no basis to quantify how
much is considered “substantial.” Final Act. 4. Claim 20 additionally
recites that “the top plug and bottom plug do not substantially contribute to
maintenance of pressurization of the wellbore.” Br. 37 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The Examiner determines that “this range includes
situations from where the plugs make no contribution at all to a contribution
that might be interpreted as ‘less than half.’” Final Act. 4. The Examiner
determines that claim 20 is additionally indefinite because there is no way to
accurately ascertain its scope. Id.
For claims in an application, “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains
words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307,
1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, slip
op. at 11 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (same). In rejected claims 18
and 20, the term “substantially” is a term of degree or approximation.
MPEP § 2173.05(b) (9th ed., rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (Section I Terms of
Degree, Section III Approximations). “Claim language employing terms of
degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to
one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, “[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and the
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

4
prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in
the art.” Id. at 1371 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
U.S. 898, 911 & n. 8 (2014)).
Appellant asserts that the term substantially is “a descriptive term
commonly used in patent claims.” Br. 29 (citing Ecolab, Inc. v.
Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Appellant
contends that, in Ecolab, the court looked to dictionary definitions of the
term “substantially” as meaning “considerable in extent” or “largely but not
wholly that which is specified.” Id. at 29–30. However, Appellant does not
indicate clearly that “substantially” should be construed in claims 18 and 20
as having either of these meanings.
Appellant contends that “the [S]pecification supports an
understanding of pressurization of the wellbore in the context of the use of a
dart, float equipment, a top plug, and a bottom plug.” Id. at 30 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 3–9). However, even if these paragraphs may support this general
understanding, they do not use the term “substantially” or otherwise describe
any objective boundary as to the meaning of this term.
Appellant also contends that claims 18 and 20 are sufficiently clear to
inform the public of the boundaries of what would constitute infringement of
the claimed subject matter. Br. 31. This contention is also unpersuasive
because it is unsupported, and further, provides no additional understanding
as to the meaning of claims 18 and 20.
Regarding claim 20, Appellant further contends:
Given the construction of wellbore equipment of macroscopic
dimensions, as is ordinary and customary, “substantially
maintaining pressurization of the wellbore” and “not
substantially [contributing] to maintenance of pressurization of
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

5
the wellbore” is dependent upon which relationship of which
elements provides a seal to maintain pressurization. When the
claim recites the “seal between the dart and the float
equipment” as substantially maintaining pressurization and the
top plug and bottom plug as not substantially contributing to
maintenance of pressurization of the well bore,” a definite
relationship of specific elements serving a specific purpose is
recited, and the claim is definite.
Appeal Br. 33–34. This contention also does not explain what is meant by
“substantially” in terms of objective boundaries, and thus, is unpersuasive.
Appellant’s Specification describes, “[i]n some applications,
subsequent high pressures within the wellbore are substantially maintained
by sealing engagement of the sealing dart and the float equipment” (see
Spec. ¶ 28 (emphasis added)), and “[i]n some applications, the top and
bottom plug do not substantially contribute to the maintenance of
subsequent high pressures within the wellbore” (see id. ¶ 29 (emphasis
added)). These descriptions closely match the language of claims 18 and 20,
but fail to provide any further objective boundaries for the meaning of
“substantially.”
As for the limitation “substantially maintain[ing] pressurization . . .
between the dart and the float equipment” recited in claims 18 and 20, the
Examiner states that the Specification provides no guidance how the
pressurization is considered “substantial,” and that “the language implies
that there may be other unclaimed elements involved in maintaining the
pressurization in a possible situation where ‘substantial’ is interpreted as
‘less than all.’” Ans. 7–8. We agree that this claim language is unclear in
claim 20 because the Specification provides no objective boundaries as to
what degree of pressurization of the wellbore is required to be maintained
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

6
(or what degree of loss of pressurization of the wellbore is permitted) by the
claimed seal.
The Examiner states that the limitation of “the top plug and bottom
plug do not substantially contribute to maintenance of pressurization of the
wellbore” recited in claim 20 “encompasses a range of where the top and
bottom plug contribute to the maintenance of the pressurization of the
wellbore to the situation described in Budde, where the top and bottom plugs
do not contribute at all to maintaining the pressurization of the wellbore.”
Ans. 8 (emphasis added). We agree that it is unclear whether the recited top
and bottom plugs do not contribute at all to maintaining pressurization, or
whether these plugs do contribute to maintaining pressurization, but their
contribution is not “substantial.” For the latter possibility, it is further
unclear what a “substantial” contribution requires. Accordingly, this
limitation in claim 20 is subject to different plausible constructions, making
it indefinite. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) (“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more
precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.”).
Absent the disclosure of any clear, objective boundaries in the
Specification to guide interpretation of the term “substantially,” we
determine that this term is unclear. See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371.
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s finding that the Specification
lacks guidance for this term by identifying disclosure of objective
boundaries or criteria to interpret substantially. See Mentor Graphics Corp.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

7
v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“This requires a
patent to provide ‘some standard for measuring that [term of] degree.’”)
(citations omitted). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 20 as
being indefinite.

Claims 1, 5–14, 16, and 18–21 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Budde discloses a wellbore sealing system
comprising a bottom plug (first plug 40), a top plug (second plug 60), and a
dart (sealing member 70) retained in the top plug and being deployable
through a bore defined in the top plug and a bore defined in the bottom plug
to sealingly engage float equipment (float assembly 20) abutting the bottom
plug. Final Act. 5. The Examiner concedes that Budde does not describe
explicitly that the dart is retained by a shear ring. Id. The Examiner notes,
however, that “Budde discloses at [para. 33] that dart 70 is held in position
by ‘shear mechanism’ 80, which are said to include shear pins, shear screws,
or any other shearing device that may shear upon reaching a predetermined
shear pressure.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that Laurel discloses a wellbore sealing system
comprising a bottom plug (bottom plug 400), a top plug (top plug 300), and
a dart (dart 200, inner sealing member 220), retained in the top plug with a
shear ring (retaining ring 225). Id. (citing Laurel ¶ 47, Fig. 10). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, in view of Laurel, to use a shear ring for the shear mechanism in
Budde to obtain the predictable result of providing a more robust retaining
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

8
system, and to substitute one known type of shear mechanism for another to
optimize the retention of the plugs. Id.
Appellant contends that Budde and Laurel do not teach or suggest “a
dart retained in the top plug via a shear ring,” as claimed, but rather,
paragraph 47 of Laurel teaches “‘sealing member 220 . . . displaced out of
the upper dart 200’ upon shearing of ‘the retaining ring 225.’” Br. 12.
Appellant contends that shearing of retaining ring 225 in Laurel does not
affect “the relationship of upper dart 200 to any other structural elements,
such as top plug 300.” Id.
These contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner’s rejection is
premised on findings that Budde teaches a dart retained in a top plug, where
the dart is “deployable through the bore defined in the top plug and the bore
defined in the bottom plug to sealingly engage float equipment abutting the
bottom plug,” as claimed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner explains that “the
only element not explicitly disclosed by Budde is the retention of the dart by
a shear ring.” Ans. 4. Although Budde does not appear to explicitly
disclose a shear ring as the shear mechanism, Budde teaches broadly that the
shear mechanism is not limited to shear pins or shear screws, but can be
“any other shearing device that may shear upon reaching a predetermined
shear pressure.” Budde ¶ 33 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the only
requirement of the shear mechanism used in Budde according to this
description is that it shears upon reaching a predetermined shear pressure.
Consistent with this broad teaching of Budde, the Examiner proposes to
utilize a retaining ring, as taught by Laurel, as a shear mechanism for
retaining sealing member 70 in Budde. The Examiner explains that Laurel is
“provided for its showing that it is known to use shearable rings as retention
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

9
mechanisms in wellbore cementing operations.” Ans. 4. The Examiner’s
finding is supported by Laurel’s teaching of a retaining ring sheared by
pressure in a plug system. Laurel ¶ 47. Appellant does not contend
persuasively that Laurel’s retaining ring cannot be considered a shear ring,
as claimed. In view of Budde’s broad teaching of the suitable shearing
devices that can be used in its system, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning for modifying Budde in view of Laurel to
include a retaining ring as the shearing mechanism.
Appellant also contends that Budde discloses “second plug 60,” “first
plug 40,” and “sealing member,” but “does not appear to mention any
‘dart.’” Br. 12. To the extent it is Appellant’s position that Budde’s sealing
member cannot be considered a “dart,” as claimed, merely because Budde
does not describe the sealing member with this same term, we disagree. To
the contrary, it is well established that a reference is not required to use the
identical terminology as in the claimed invention to constitute a disclosure.
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, Appellant does not explain persuasively why Budde’s
sealing member cannot be considered a dart, as claimed, despite not being
described with this term. In this regard, Appellant does not contend
persuasively that a “dart” requires some structural feature that is lacking in
Budde’s sealing member. And, we note the Examiner finds that Budde’s
sealing member performs the same function as the claimed dart; namely, the
sealing member “is deployable through the bore defined in the top plug and
the bore defined in the bottom plug to sealingly engage float equipment
abutting the bottom plug.” Ans. 3. Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Budde’s sealing member performs this function.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

10
For these additional reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Budde discloses a dart as claimed.
Appellant also contends Budde does not disclose “how ‘any other
shearing device’ besides the stated ‘shear pins’ or ‘shear screws’ could be
installed,” as Budde “does not appear to contemplate any other feature of the
top plug for retaining a shearing device aside from the radially oriented
holes, which seem specifically suitable for retaining the stated ‘shear pins’
or ‘shear screws.’” Br. 17.
This contention is unpersuasive. Even if Budde illustrates shear pins
used as the shearing device, Budde’s disclosure is not limited to only the
specific embodiments shown in the drawings. To the contrary, a reference
“may be used as evidence of obviousness under [35 U.S.C.] § 103 for all it
fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d
538, 543 (CCPA 1973). Here, Budde explicitly describes that the shearing
device can be “any other shearing device [than shear pins or shear screws]
that may shear upon reaching a predetermined shear pressure.” Budde ¶ 33.
We are unpersuaded Budde needs to additionally illustrate or describe such
other types of shearing devices for Budde to be considered to disclose them.
Regarding Laurel, Appellant contends that “[r]etaining ring 225
appears to bear upon a bulbous nose of inner sealing member 220,” which is
contradicted by Budde’s teachings of a conical section 88A, 88B. Br. 17.
Appellant appears to be contending that if Laurel’s shearing device were
incorporated into Budde, Budde’s structure “would inhibit concentration of a
shear force at retaining ring 225” in the combination. Id.
This contention is unpersuasive. First, to the extent Appellant is
contending that the structures of Budde and Laurel must be physically
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

11
combinable with each other in order to combine their teachings, “[i]t is well-
established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.” (Citation omitted)).
Second, Appellant’s argument fails to take into account the
presumption that a skilled artisan is a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton, and, as such, would have understood how to utilize different
types of shearing devices in Budde. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that one of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to
be skillful). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that one of
ordinary skill in the art would lack the requisite level of skill to be able to
combine the teachings of Budde and Laurel as proposed by the Examiner to
result in the claimed wellbore sealing system.
Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of error in either
the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites, “further comprising a dart
receptacle defined in the float equipment.” Br. 35 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Budde discloses this limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

12
Appellant disagrees, contending that Budde’s sealing member 70A is
configured to mate with receptacle 30 in float assembly 20. Br. 19.
Appellant contends that, in Laurel, upper dart 200 remains unchanged in
position upon shearing of retaining ring 225, and so “it cannot be said that
there is any teaching or suggestion of receptacle 30 in the float assembly 20
serving as a ‘dart receptacle,’ especially since . . . Budde . . . does not appear
to even mention any sort of ‘dart.” Id.
This contention is unpersuasive. As discussed above, the Examiner’s
rejection incorporates, or substitutes, Laurel’s retaining ring in Budde as the
shear mechanism to retain sealing member 70A in second plug 60.
Appellant does not explain persuasively why Budde’s sealing member
cannot be considered a “dart,” and thus, does not explain persuasively why
Budde’s receptacle 30, which receives the sealing member, cannot be
considered to correspond to the claimed dart receptacle. Appellant’s
contention does not address persuasively the proposed combination, and
thus, fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. We
sustain the rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites, “the receptacle is defined
within a float collar adjacent a float valve.” Br. 35 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds Budde discloses that the receptacle is defined within a float
collar (float assembly 20) adjacent a float valve (valves 32A, 32B). Final
Act. 5.
Appellant contends that the applied combination fails to teach “a dart
receptacle,” as claimed. Br. 19. This contention is unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed for claim 5. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

13
the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 as
unpatentable over Budde and Laurel for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and recites, “the receptacle is defined
within at least one of a landing collar, float shoe, guide shoe, stage collar,
and fracking collar.” Br. 35 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Budde
discloses this limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Budde ¶ 5).
Appellant’s contention for claim 7 is again premised on the contention
that the applied combination fails to teach a “dart receptacle,” as recited in
claim 5. Br. 19. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable
over Budde and Laurel for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites, “the dart further comprises
a latch configured to engage a complementary feature of the float
equipment.” Br. 35 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Budde’s sealing
member includes a lock ring 94A (Fig. 2A) or a lock ring 94B (Fig. 3C) that
engages a groove 38 of receptacle 30 and satisfies this limitation of claim 8.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant again contends unpersuasively that Budde fails to mention
any “dart.” Br. 20. Furthermore, Appellant does not explain persuasively
why Budde’s lock ring 94A or 94B cannot be considered a latch of a dart
configured to engage a complimentary feature of float equipment, as
claimed. Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 as
unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

14
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and recites, “the dart is configured with
first and second sealing surfaces to engage a complementary feature of the
float equipment to provide bi-directional sealing.” Br. 35 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Budde discloses the claimed complimentary features;
namely, shoulder 96B (of sealing member 70B) and recess (groove 38 of
receptacle 30) as shown in Figures 3A and 3C. Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends that Budde teaches only that shoulder 96B
engages a seat on receptacle 30 to prevent sealing member 70B from axial
movement and does not teach that shoulder 96B and groove 38 provide the
claimed bi-directional sealing. Br. 20 (citing Budde ¶ 39). The Examiner
responds that Budde discloses seals 98B to prevent fluid communication
through the bore of the float assembly, “which certainly appears to be ‘bi-
directional’ sealing.” Ans. 4–5.
We note seals 98B are shown in Figure 3C of Budde, for example. As
described in Budde, “the sealing member 70B includes one or more seals
98B, such as a-rings, that prevent fluid communication through the bore of
the float assembly 20.” Budde ¶ 39 (boldface omitted). Appellant does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that seals 98B and groove 38
provide the claimed bi-directional sealing. Accordingly, because Appellant
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we
sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites a method of sealing a wellbore
comprising, inter alia, “deploying a top plug retaining via a shear ring a
deployable dart down the wellbore.” Br. 36 (Claims App.) (emphasis
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

15
added). The Examiner finds Budde discloses all limitations of claim 10
except for a shear ring, and, as discussed above for the rejection of claim 1,
relies on Laurel as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant contends that Budde and Laurel fail to teach or suggest “a
dart retained in the top plug via a shear ring.” Br. 21. This contention is
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above for the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of error in either the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites, “deploying the dart
comprises pressurizing the wellbore to overcome a shear device positioned
between the top plug and the dart.” Br. 36 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds Budde teaches a shear device (shearing mechanism). Final Act. 5
(citing Budde ¶ 29).
Appellant contends that because Laurel’s upper dart 200 remains
unchanged in position upon shearing of retaining ring 225, the applied
combination does not teach or suggest “deploying the dart comprises
pressurizing the wellbore to overcome a shear device 80 positioned between
the top plug and the dart,” especially because Budde does not appear to even
mention any “dart.” Br. 22.
These contentions are unpersuasive for reasons discussed for the
rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on Laurel only for teaching a
shear ring, and Appellant’s contention that Budde does not teach a dart is
unpersuasive. Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of error
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

16
in either the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of
claim 11 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites, “further comprising
receiving the dart within a receptacle defined in the float equipment.” Br. 36
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds Budde discloses a receptacle 30
received in float assembly 20. Final Act. 7.
Appellant again contends that because Laurel’s upper dart 200
remains unchanged in position upon shearing of retaining ring 225, the
applied combination does not teach or suggest that receptacle 30 in float
assembly 20 “receiv[es] the dart within a receptacle 30 defined in the float
equipment,” especially because Budde does not appear to even mention any
“dart.” Br. 22.
These contentions are unpersuasive for reasons discussed above for
the rejections of claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, because Appellant does not
apprise us of error in either the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain
the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites, “the receptacle is
defined within a float collar adjacent a float valve.” Br. 36 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Budde discloses float collar 20 adjacent valves 32A,
32B. Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends that the applied combination fails to disclose or
suggest the recited limitation because the combination does not teach
“receiving the dart within a receptacle defined in the float equipment,” as
recited in claim 12. As Appellant’s contentions for claim 12 are
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

17
unpersuasive, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over
Budde and Laurel for the same reasons.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and recites, “receiving the dart
comprises latching the dart within the receptacle defined in the float
equipment.” Br. 36 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Budde discloses
this limitation. Final Act. 7.
For claim 14, Appellant again contends that Budde does not mention a
“dart,” and that Laurel distinguishes inner seal member 220 from upper dart
200 after retaining ring 225 has been sheared. Br. 23.
These contentions are unpersuasive for reasons discussed above for
claims 10 and 12. Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of
error in either the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection
of claim 14 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel for the same reasons.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 10 and recites, “further comprising
forming an axial seal between the dart and the bottom plug.” Br. 36 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Budde discloses this
limitation. Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Budde discloses that sealing
member 70A mates with receptacle 30 in float assembly 20. Br. 23 (citing
Budde ¶¶ 32, 34).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not show by a
preponderance of the evidence that Budde forms an axial seal between
sealing member 70A and first plug 40 (the “bottom plug”). Paragraph 29 of
Budde teaches that sealing member 70 travels through first plug 40 and into
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

18
float assembly 20, where sealing member 70 seals float assembly 20. And,
as Appellant notes, paragraphs 32 and 34 of Budde disclose that sealing
member 70A mates with or engages receptacle 30. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 10 and recites, “further comprising
substantially maintaining pressurization of the wellbore by a seal between
the dart and the float equipment.” Br. 36 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Budde discloses this limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing
Budde ¶ 29).
Appellant contends that because Laurel’s upper dart 200 remains
unchanged in position upon shearing of retaining ring 225, the applied
combination does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 18, especially
because Budde does not mention a “dart,” as claimed. Br. 24.
This contention is unpersuasive. Appellant does not show
persuasively that Budde fails to disclose a dart, as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Budde, not Laurel, for teaching a dart that forms an axial
seal between it and float equipment. Accordingly, because Appellant does
not apprise us of error in either the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we
sustain the rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and recites, “pressurization of the
wellbore is at least partially maintained by a seal between the dart and the
bottom plug.” Br. 37 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Budde discloses
this limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing Budde ¶ 29).
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

19
Appellant contends that Budde teaches that sealing member 70 travels
through second plug 60 and first plug 40 and into receptacle 30 in float
assembly, and sealing member 70 seals float assembly 20. Br. 24–25 (citing
Budde ¶ 29). Accordingly, Appellant contends, Budde’s teaching of sealing
member 70 sealing float assembly 20 does not teach that “pressurization of
the wellbore is at least partially maintained by a seal between the dart and
the bottom plug,” as recited in claim 19. Id. at 25 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Budde forms a seal between sealing
member 70A and first plug 40 (the “bottom plug”). Paragraph 29 of Budde
teaches that sealing member 70 mates with or engages receptacle 30.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable
over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 10 and recites, “further comprising
substantially maintaining pressurization of the wellbore by a seal between
the dart and the float equipment wherein the top plug and bottom plug do
not substantially contribute to maintenance of pressurization of the
wellbore.” Br. 37 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds
Budde discloses these claimed features. Final Act. 7 (citing Budde ¶ 29).
Appellant again contends that because Laurel’s upper dart 200
remains unchanged in position upon shearing of retaining ring 225, the
applied combination does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 20,
especially because Budde does not mention a “dart,” as claimed. Br. 25.
This contention is again unpersuasive for reasons discussed above.
Appellant does not show persuasively that Budde fails to disclose a dart, and
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

20
the contention does not address persuasively the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, because Appellant does not apprise us of error in either the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 as
unpatentable over Budde and Laurel.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 9 and recites, “at least one of the sealing
surfaces is a cammed surface that engages a complementary feature of the
float equipment to provide bi-directional sealing.” Br. 37 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The Examiner finds Budde teaches that sealing member
70A may include a tapered section at a lower end of the first bore or second
bore. Final Act. 8. As understood, the Examiner finds that the tapered
section of Budde meets the limitation of “a cammed surface that engages a
complementary feature of the float equipment” because Appellant’s
Specification “uses taper and cam interchangeably. Id.
Appellant contends that the Specification describes the terms
“tapered” and “cammed” alternatively, not interchangeably. Br. 26. The
Examiner responds that the Specification does not explain how operation of
latch 36 “would be different by using a ‘cammed’ surface[] instead of a
‘tapered’ surface.” Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, claim 21 only
requires “‘a cammed surface that engages a complementary feature of the
float equipment,’” and Budde’s tapered section disclosed in paragraph 31
“obviously meets this limitation.” Id.
First, we agree with Appellant that the Specification does not disclose
that the terms “tapered” and “cammed” are interchangeable. Accordingly,
we agree with Appellant that claim 21 requires a “cammed surface,” as
recited. Second, the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

21
evidence that Budde’s disclosed “tapered section” is, in fact, a “cammed
surface.” Third, as discussed above for claim 9, the Examiner finds that, in
Budde, seals 98B and groove 38 provide the claimed bi-directional sealing.
See Ans. 4–5. Claim 21 requires that at least one of the sealing surfaces
recited in claim 9 is a cammed surface. The Examiner does not find,
however, that one of the sealing surfaces in Budde relied on in rejecting
claim 9 is a camming surface as recited in claim 21. Fourth, we agree with
Appellant that, regardless, the Examiner does not show by a preponderance
of the evidence that the tapered section disclosed in Budde meets the
limitation of the cammed surface, as recited in claim 21. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over Budde and
Laurel.
Claims 15 and 22 as unpatentable over Budde, Laurel, and Coone
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites, “latching the dart
comprises compressing circumferential latch segments to pass a restriction
defined in the receptacle and expanding the circumferential latch segments
to engage a feature of the receptacle.” Br. 36 (Claims App.). The Examiner
relies on Coone for teaching the features of claim 15. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner explains that Coone provides “disclosure that it is known to
provide latch segments that can be compressed to pass a restriction and then
expand to engage a complementary feature (threads) on a receptacle, as
shown in figures 3 and 4.” Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the latch of Budde to include circumferential
latch segments as taught by Coone “to obtain the predictable result of more
securely locking the plug to the float collar.” Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

22
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s stated motivation of “locking
the plug to the float collar” does not correspond to the recited limitations of
claim 15. Br. 27.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. As discussed above,
Appellant does not argue persuasively that Budde fails to disclose the recited
dart. Furthermore, Appellant does not show that the Examiner’s proposed
combination would lack any limitation recited in claim 15. Accordingly,
because Appellant does not apprise us of error in either the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable
over Budde, Laurel, and Coone.
Claim 22 depends from claim 15 and recites, “the circumferential
latch segments consist of cammed surfaces to engage a complementary
feature of the receptacle.” Br. 37 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Coone
discloses tapered surfaces (threads 26), which “obviously” meet the
limitation of claim 22. Ans. 7.
We agree with Appellant that claim 22 requires “cammed surfaces.”
Br. 27. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
show by a preponderance of the evidence that Coone discloses the recited
“cammed surfaces.” Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22 as
unpatentable over Budde, Laurel, and Coone.

Claims 17 and 23 as unpatentable over Budde, Laurel, and Giroux
Appellant essentially relies on the dependency of claims 17 and 23
from parent claim 10 for patentability. Br. 28–29. As we find no error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, we sustain the rejection of claims 17
and 23 as unpatentable over Budde, Laurel, and Giroux.
Appeal 2018-002016
Application 14/694,299

23

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
18, 20 112(b)

18, 20
1, 5–14, 16,
18–21
103 Budde, Laurel 1, 5–14,
18, 20
16, 19, 21
15, 22 103 Budde, Laurel,
Coone
15 22
17, 23 103 Budde, Laurel,
Giroux
17, 23
Overall
Outcome

1, 5–15,
17, 18,
20, 23
16, 19,
21, 22
RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART