Ex Parte Juda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2013

11609585 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN DAVID JUDA and
EUGENE CHARLES CHAUVIERE III
____________________

Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-6 and 8-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a ram-type blowout preventer, as
well as a method of actuating such a preventer, which the Specification
describes as having the ability to seal in two directions without using a
dedicated test tool to seal in one of the directions (Spec. [0017]). Claims 1,
10, 13, and 17 are the sole independent claims.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims under
appeal.
1. A ram-type blowout preventer,
comprising:
a body;
a vertical bore through the body;
a horizontal bore through the body
intersecting the vertical bore;
a pair of ram blocks disposed in the
horizontal bore on opposite sides of the body,
wherein the ram blocks are configured to move
along the horizontal bore to have controlled lateral
movement to and from the vertical bore;

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed
December 12, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed October 26, 2010), and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 18, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 20, 2011).

Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585

3
a seal carrier disposed about the vertical
bore between the body and adjacent to the
horizontal bore; and
a sealing device positioned between the
body and the seal carrier,
wherein the seal carrier is configured to be
displaced along an axis of the vertical bore such
that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a
predetermined range along the vertical bore, and
the sealing device is positioned further away
from the axis of the vertical bore than a top seal of
the at least one of the pair of ram blocks such that
when a pressure from above the pair of ram blocks
is applied, a net force is generated that pushes the
seal carrier towards the pair of ram blocks.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parks (US 4,444,404, iss. Apr. 24, 1984) in view of Estes
(US 3,078,865, iss. Feb. 26, 1963).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Parks in view of
Estes. For the reasons discussed in detail below, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not established that the references teach or suggest
“the seal carrier is configured to be displaced along an axis of the vertical
bore such that the seal carrier moves unbiased within a predetermined range
along the vertical bore,” as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585

4
Specifically, the Examiner states that Parks teaches “a seal carrier
disposed about the vertical bore between the body and adjacent to the
horizontal bore[,] and a sealing device (o-ring seal positioned in the corner
formed on the seal carrier between the seal carrier and body 11 ) positioned
between the body and the seal carrier (figure 1)” (Ans. 4). The Examiner
concedes that Parks “does not disclose the seal carrier to be configured to be
displaced along an axis of the vertical bore such that the seal carrier moves
unbiased within a predetermined range” (Ans. 4). The Examiner relies on
Estes to remedy this deficiency, stating that Estes “teach[es] the use of a seal
carrier (72) that is movable along an axis of a bore (12) through a body (10)
that is pressed against a movable member (20) such that the seal carrier
moves unbiased within a predetermined range” (id.). The Examiner further
states
it would have been obvious . . . to provide
the seal carrier of Parks . . . as a movable seal
carrier as taught by Estes . . . in order to permit
the build up of line pressure between the end wall
and the axial outer wall of the seal carrier to cause
the seal carrier into a sealing engagement with the
movable member such that a sealing member
located between the movable member and the seal
carrier can compensate for most minor scratches
on the sealing surface of the movable member
(Ans. 4-5, italics added). The Examiner relies on Estes to provide this
rationale (Ans. 4).
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court stated that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” 550
Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585

5
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As Appellants point out, the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Parks with Estes “merely paraphrases language from Estes[,]
providing no rationale for modifying Parks” (App. Br. 23). We note that
Parks and Estes teach different valves having different structures, which seal
in different ways. Neither valve is concerned with sealing in two directions.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that Parks does teach a seal carrier as stated
by the Examiner, Parks does not disclose that the seal carrier is configured to
move, and in fact the figures of Parks show that the seal carrier is disposed
between and in contact with both the housing 11 and the ram block 64,
thereby preventing any movement of the seal carrier. At most, the
Examiner’s statement provides a rationale as to why one may use a sealing
member between the seal carrier and the housing 11 of Parks, which may
compensate for minor scratches on the sealing surface of either or both of
the seal carrier and housing 11 and thereby provide a tight seal. However,
this rationale does not address why one would replace the seal carrier of
Parks, which appears to be immovably disposed between the housing 11 and
the ram block 64, with a movable seal carrier from Estes. Thus, the
Examiner has not sufficiently articulated a reason with rational
underpinnings for taking a movable seal carrier from Estes, which does not
utilize ram blocks or similar structure, and using such a movable seal carrier
in place of the immovable seal carrier that is used to seal against ram blocks
in Parks.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 10, 13, and 17 include similar limitations as
independent claim 1, and claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 depend
Appeal 2011-007896
Application 11/609,585

6
from the independent claims. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 10, 13, and 17, and we do not sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls