Brent Cox

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2019

14017891 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
14/017,891 09/04/2013 Brent Cox 1784-46 3834
24106 7590 09/17/2019
Egbert Law Offices, PLLC
1001 Texas Ave., Suite 1250
HOUSTON, TX 77002
EXAMINER
LAMBE, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2019 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):
KMCDANIEL@EGBERTLAWOFFICES.COM
MAIL@EGBERTLAWOFFICES.COM
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRENT COX
____________________

Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12–14, 17, 19, and 20 of
Application 14/017,891 (“the ’891 application”). 1, 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. Reference Relied on by the Examiner
Brey US 2011/0311311 A1 Dec. 22, 2011
B. Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brey.
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Brey.
C. The Invention
The Specification of the ’891 application characterizes the field of the
disclosed invention as follows:
The present invention relates to blowout preventer systems
for use with subsea wells. More particularly, the present
invention relates to capping stacks as used in association with the

1 In this opinion, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answer mailed June
6, 2017, 2017 (“Ans.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 26, 2017
(“App. Br.”), and the Final Rejection mailed June 29, 2016 (“Final Rej.”)

2 Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as TRENDSETTER
ENGINEERING, INC. App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

3
wellhead or blowout preventer. More particularly, the present
invention relates to capping stacks having a plurality of flow
passageways formed therein so as to allow the fluid from the
subsea well to pass upwardly therethrough and therefrom.
Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A capping stack for use with a subsea well, the capping
stack comprising:
a body having a flow passageway extending therethrough,
said flow passageway of said body having an inlet end and an
outlet end, said outlet end having a surface extending transverse
to a longitudinal axis of said flow passageway, said inlet end
adapted to communicate with a fluid passageway of a blowout
preventer or to a wellhead of the subsea well, said body having a
first bore having one end opening through said surface so as to
communicate with said outlet of said flow passageway, said first
bore extending upwardly at an acute angle of 60° or less to
vertical from said flow passageway, said body having a second
bore having one end opening through said surface, said second
bore extending upwardly from said flow passageway, said first
bore diverging away from said second bore in a direction away
from said outlet end of said flow passageway;
a first flow line affixed to said first bore and extending
upwardly therefrom;
a second flow line affixed to said second bore and
extending upwardly therefrom, each of said first and second flow
lines comprising:
a first portion having a first end and a second end,
said first end connected to the respective bore, said first
portion extending in axial alignment with the respective
bores; and
a second portion extending from said second end of
said first portion and extending vertically upwardly
therefrom;
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

4
a first valve cooperative with said first flowline so as to be
movable between an open position and a closed position, said
open position allowing fluids from the subsea well to flow
through said first flow line, said closed position suitable for
blocking fluids from passing outwardly of said first flow line;
a second valve cooperative said second flowline so as to
be movable between an open position and a closed position, said
open position of said second valve suitable allowing fluids from
the subsea well to flow through said second flow line, said closed
position of said second valve suitable for blocking fluids from
passing outwardly of said second flow line and a connector
affixed to a lower end of said body, said connector adapted to
directly connect said body to either the blowout preventer or the
wellhead.
App. Br. Claims App’x 21–22.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner determined that claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, and 13 are
anticipated by Brey.
1. Overview of Brey
Brey is titled “Method and System for Confining and Salvaging Oil
and Methane Leakage from Offshore Locations and Extraction Operations.”
Brey (54). Brey’s Figure 9 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

5

Figure 9 depicts a “cross-section view of an exemplary closed-bottom
containment vessel[.]” Brey ¶ 21. As shown in Figure 9, containment
vessel 400 includes hollow body 410 with flanged ports 415 and 430. Id.
¶ 45. Valves or ports 435 and 438 allow for selective connection of “fluid
delivery devices such as risers” to the containment vessel. Id. ¶ 46.
Brey’s Figure 10 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

6

Brey describes its Figure 10 as “a section view of an exemplary
closed-bottom containment vessel, partially embedded in pumped concrete
surrounded by a containment barrier with a catenary gasket, collar and
supported braces according to principles of the invention.” Id. ¶ 22. Brey
describes that “[a] pair of risers extend from ports 435, 438 to a fluid
delivery device 320 which may be a manifold and pump and/or meter.” Id.
¶ 48.

Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

7
2. Discussion—Anticipation
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established if every element in
a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a prior art
reference. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001). The Examiner found that all of the features required by
claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, and 13 were present in Brey and arranged as required
by those claims. Final Rej. 2–4. Appellant disagrees. The core basis of that
disagreement centers on the requirement in claim 1 of first and second
flowlines, each with a first and second portion where the second portion is
“extending vertically upwardly” from an end of the first portion. App. Br.
15–18. In accounting for that requirement, the Examiner pointed to items
310 and 315 in Brey’s Figure 10. Final Rej. 6. More specifically, the
Examiner provided an explanation, which is reproduced below.
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

8

Id. The Examiner also states that “[t]he drawings, the description, and the
word choice of Brey clearly indicate the flowlines 310 and 315 extend
vertically upward from the connections [435 and 438].” Ans. 4.
Although it does not appear that Brey expressly refers to reference
characters 310 and 315 in its specification, we agree with the Examiner that
the structures designated 310 and 315 in Brey’s Figure 10 are inferred
reasonably as constituting the “risers” described in Brey. See, e,g., Brey
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

9
¶ 48 (“[a] pair of risers extend from ports 435, 438 to a fluid delivery
device 320 . . .”) Although those risers are illustrated as ultimately
extending in a downward direction towards fluid delivery device 320,
Appellant’s contention that they “immediately curve downwardly” to
device 320 is, in our view, not accurate. See App. Br. 17. Rather, it is
readily apparent from Brey’s Figure 10 that portions of the “risers” 310
and 315 initially extend above ports 435 and 438. Appellant’s claim 1
broadly recites that the flowlines include some structure regarded as a
second “portion” extending vertically upwardly from some structure
regarded as a first “portion.” Brey’s risers 310 and 315 are understood
reasonably as being composed of multiple “portions” as a part of their
structure. As both of those risers extend in a vertical direction above
ports 435 and 438, it is reasonable to conclude that a second “portion” of the
risers is configured to be “extending vertically upwardly” of a first
“portion.” We do not discern error in the Examiner’s position to that effect.
Other than the claim feature discussed above, Appellant does not
contend that Brey lacks disclosure of any other feature set forth in
claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, and 13. We do not conclude that the Examiner’s
decision to reject that those claims as anticipated by Brey should be
reversed.
B. Obviousness Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner also rejected claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable
based on Brey. Claim 14 is an independent claim directed to a “flow
diverting system for use with a subsea well.” App. Br. Claims App’x 23.
Like claim 1, claim 14 requires the feature of an “extending vertically
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

10
upwardly” orientation of a second portion relative to a first portion of a
flowline. We are satisfied that the Examiner has accounted for that feature
in claim 14.
Claim 14 additionally requires a “blowout preventer” that is arranged
with an upper end connected to a body of the flow diverting system.3 The
Examiner characterizes that requirement as stating that the blowout
preventer is “below the body.” Ans. 4. According to Appellant, “Brey fails
to disclose the body of the capping stack connected to the upper end of the
BOP,” and it would not have been obvious to orient a blowout preventer
with respect to a body in the manner required by claim 14. App. Br. 18–19.
Figure 10 of Brey does disclose a blowout preventer 330 that is
attached to top port 430, and thus is oriented above body 400 rather than
below that body. Brey Fig. 10; ¶ 48. That, however, is not the extent of
Brey’s disclosure when it comes to the positioning of a blowout preventer
with respect to body 400. To that end, Brey also discloses that “the flange of
the bottom port 415 is configured to engage a well pipe or blow-out
preventer of a well.” Id. ¶ 45. Thus, Brey contemplates that a blowout
preventer may be positioned below body 400 and configured to connect with
bottom port 415. A reference stands for all of its specific teachings, as well
as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The Examiner’s view that a skilled artisan would have recognized or
inferred from Brey’s teachings that a blowout preventer may also be

3 A “blowout preventer” is also referred to in the record as a “BOP.”
Appeal 2017-011583
Application 14/017,891

11
positioned beneath the body of a capping system and connected thereto is
reasonable. See Ans. 5.
Appellant does not offer any additional arguments that Brey lacks
disclosure of any other features of claims 14, 17, 19, and 20. We do not
conclude that there is error in the Examiner’s decision to reject those claims
as unpatentable over Brey.
III. CONCLUSION
We have fully considered the record before us, including Appellant’s
briefing, the Examiner’s Final Rejection, and the Examiner’s Answer. For
the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the record before us
that the Examiner was incorrect in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12–14, 17, 19,
and 20 over the prior art.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Outcome
1, 3, 6–10, 12, 13 § 102 AFFIRMED
14, 17, 19, and 20 § 103 AFFIRMED

IV. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12–14, 17, 19,
and 20 the prior art is affirmed.

AFFIRMED