Baker Hughes Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

15399130 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2020)

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.
15/399,130 01/05/2017 John J. Mack SYS4-59612 (045734) 1003
76184 7590 07/31/2020
Bracewell LLP
P.O. Box 61389
Houston, TX 77208-1389
EXAMINER
YAO, THEODORE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 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):
docketing@bracewell.com
james.bradley@bracewell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOHN J. MACK and ROBERT CLAY PATTERSON
__________

Appeal 2020-000995
Application1 15/399,130
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before ANTON FETTING, AMEE A. SHAH, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
assembly for pumping well fluid from a well, which have been rejected as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Specification states that “[e]lectrical submersible well
pump assemblies (ESP) are often used to pump hydrocarbon producing
wells” and they are “installed in a variety of manners using coiled tubing

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 Baker
Hughes, a GE Company, LLC. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

2
deployed from a reel.” (Spec. 2.) The Specification notes that “[a] packer in
the production tubing will isolate the intake of the ESP from the discharge.”
(Id.) The Specification states that a “disadvantage of a coiled tubing
installation” is where thermal growth of the production tubing occurs, which
“could possibly push the packer down in the production tubing, causing the
packer to lose sealing engagement with the production tubing.” (Id.)
Appellant’s invention is concerned with a pump assembly that “is movable
relative to the packer bore in response to thermal growth” but still “seals in
the packer bore.” (Id. at 1.)
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 21–23, and 25 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
1. An assembly for pumping well fluid from a well,
comprising:
a string of coiled tubing for lowering into a conduit of the
well;
an electrical submersible pump (“ESP”) secured to the
string of coiled tubing, the ESP having a longitudinal axis, a
pump and a motor;
a seal member having at least one annular seal and
connected into the ESP concentric with the axis of the ESP;
a packer carried by the ESP and configured to set in the
conduit at a selected depth, the packer having a body with a
bore through which the seal member extends with the seal in
sealing engagement with the bore;
shear means for initially retaining the body of the packer
in a fixed axial position with the seal member as the ESP is
lowered on the string of coiled tubing into the conduit and
while the packer is being set, and after the packer has set, for
enabling the seal member to move downward in the bore of the
body of the packer in response to a downward axial force on the
seal member due to thermal growth of the string of coiled
tubing relative to conduit, the shear means comprising a shear
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

3
pin extending laterally from the body of the packer into the seal
member.
(Appeal Br. 23.)

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cornette et al. US 5,348,092 Sept. 20, 1994
Mack et al. US 8,538,632 B2 Sept. 10, 2013
Stewart US 3,792,732 Feb. 19, 1974
Duell et al. US 5,261,492 Nov. 16, 1993
Badalamenti et al. US 2008/0017376 A1 Jan 24, 2008

The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on
review:
Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cornette and
Mack.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cornette, Mack, and Stewart.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cornette, Mack, and Duell.2
Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cornette,
Mack, and Badalamenti.
Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cornette, Mack, Duell, and Stewart.

2 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection in the Final Action did not
include claim 21. (Final Action 12.) However, we determine that this was
an inadvertent error because the analysis by the Examiner specifically
addresses claim 21. (Id. at 17.)
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

4
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Cornette teaches an assembly for pumping
well fluid from a well that includes a seal member, a packer, and a shear
means. (Final Action 5–6.) The Examiner recognizes that Cornette “is
silent” regarding a string of coiled tubing, an ESP, and a connection of the
seal member into the ESP concentric with the axis of the ESP. (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner finds that Mack teaches a string of coiled tubing for
lowering an ESP into a conduit of a well, where the ESP also has a seal
member connected in the ESP concentric with the ESP axis. (Id. at 6–7.)
The Examiner notes that the combination of gravel packing/sand
screen assemblies in production wells with an ESP is known in the art as
indicated in US 2016/0177684 A1 (Parks), US 2009/0008088 A1 (Shultz),
and US 2007/0144746 A1 (Jonas). (Ans. 7.) In addition the Examiner finds
that “the consideration of artificial lift techniques e.g. the use of an ESP,
packer deployment and use, and sand control techniques (such as gravel
packing and sand screens) are routine, major considerations when designing
a well completions operation.” (Id. at 6 (citing Bellarby3 11–13).) The
Examiner notes that “[i]n designing a well completions, a well completions
engineer would contemplate these completions design considerations.” (Id.
at 4.)
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the production well of Cornette by

3 Jonathan Bellarby, Well Completion Design, 56 Developments in
Petroleum Science (Elsevier 2009).
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

5
adding an ESP as disclosed in Mack so as to enhance the fluids produced
from the well. (Final Action 7.) Moreover, the Examiner concludes that
using coiled tubing as taught in Mack in substitution for the rigid tubing of
Cornette would have been obvious as a matter of simple substitution of the
tubing used for lowering that would obtain predictable results in the
production well of Cornette. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
A. Analogous Art
Appellant first argues that Cornette is not analogous art to the claimed
invention. (Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 1–2.) We do not find that
argument persuasive for the reasons that follow. “In order to rely on a
reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference
must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We note
that if the art meets either one of these criteria, it is considered analogous.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues only that “Cornette is not
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of thermal growth causing an
ESP coiled tubing string to lengthen enough to result in seal leakage.”
(Appeal Br. 13.) Appellant does not address whether or not Cornette is in
the same field of invention until the Examiner points out that they were in
the Answer. The Examiner explains that both Cornette and the claimed
invention are “related to the apparatuses associated with deployment of
packer systems in a well concurrent with well production equipment all of
which are a part of and consideration for well completion design.” (Ans. 4.)
Even more specifically, the Examiner explains that, like the claimed
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

6
invention, Cornette is concerned with “the deployment and setting of . . .
well completion systems.” (Id. at 5.) Appellant’s response is the following
assertion:
Although both ESP installations and auger sand screen
installations are well completions, they are not in the same field
of endeavor because an inventor of an ESP coiled tubing
installation would not have been motivated to consider
Cornette. The field of endeavors are not the same.
(Reply Br. 1.) Not only do we find Appellant’s argument to be tardy, given
that it is well-known that prior art is analogous when either criteria is met,
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“the
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but
were not.”), we also find it lacking in evidentiary support sufficient to
establish this factual matter. “Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for
evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We agree with the Examiner that both the claimed invention and
Cornette are concerned with the deployment and setting of well bore
equipment including a packer. Regarding the placement and setting of the
packer in the well, Appellant explains with respect to the claimed invention
that “[t]hermal growth lengthening of the coiled tubing could cause the
external seal on the packer to slip downward.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Cornette
explains that reciprocation of the tubing string through the packer on
installation of the sand control screen causes “the packing or seal rings on
the tubing string sub which engages the packer seal bore [to] invariably
move[] into and out of the bore” which breaks the fluid tight seal between
spaced apart zones. (Cornette 1:29–46.) The shear pins of Cornette allow
for the packer to be set and then to prevent its movement when an axial force
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

7
acts on the deployment tubing to finish installation of the sand screen. (Id.
5:35–49.)
The Examiner provides three references that demonstrate ESP
installation and sand control component installation are not so independent
that they would not be considered together in well completion design. (See,
e.g., Parks ¶¶ 17–21 and Figure 1 (noting the exemplary tubing string
includes a tool stack for managing production where the production string
includes an ESP assembly and further below it there is a production zone
that “typically” includes sand screens, where the ESP assembly pumps the
production fluid to the surface); Jonas ¶¶ 25–27 (describing a system
enabling deployment of a lower assembly that includes a sand screen in a
well bore and subsequent deployment of an upper assembly and noting that
these assemblies can include packers and ESPs or other lift valves); Schultz
¶ 23 (describing a well bore completed for production that includes sand
screens, packers “and, in some instances, includes a fluid lift system (e.g.,
electric submersible pump. . . ) for producing resources of the subterranean
formation to the surface.”).)
Furthermore, the Examiner provides yet another reference, Bellarby,
that indicates that in designing a well completion, the well completion
engineer contemplates topics such as lift, tubing isolation, and sand control
requirements. (Bellarby 11–13.) Thus, the attorney argument alone
asserting that an inventor of an ESP coiled tubing installation would not
have been motivated to consider Cornette is not persuasive.
B. Combination of Mack and Cornette renders the claimed apparatus
obvious
Appellant’s argument that combining Mack with Cornette would be
unworkable (Appeal Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 6–7) is also unpersuasive.
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

8
Appellant contends that “[t]aking away the auger type sand screen of
Cornette would destroy the teachings of Cornette.” (Appeal Br. 15.) The
Examiner’s rejection does not suggest taking away the sand screen, but
rather, adding the ESP pump to a well completion that also includes a sand
screen. (See, e.g., Ans. 6.) And, as discussed above, such combinations are
well known in the art. (See Parks ¶¶ 17–21; Jonas ¶¶ 25–27; Schultz ¶ 23.)
Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s argument as to an absence of
suggestion of how the combination could be accomplished (Appeal Br. 16)
to be compelling of Examiner error. Nor is Appellant’s argument that a
power cable connected to the motor of Mack would twist and part if
combining Mack with Cornette. (Id.)
First,
[t]here is a distinction between trying to physically combine the
two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on
the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from
the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the
claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a
combination of references, even if the features of one reference
cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other
reference.
Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir.
1983). As just discussed, combining both structures together into a well
completion is known. As for Appellant’s power cord argument, we agree
with the Examiner’s implication that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been able to determine the placement of a power cable to be used with
the ESP in order to achieve a working ESP. (Ans. 7.) Indeed, Parks teaches
one such method (Parks ¶ 21), as does Jonas (Jonas ¶¶ 26–27).
Appellant also argues that “the combination of Cornette with Mack
would require Cornette’s tubing string 28 to comprise coiled tubing . . .
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

9
[which] is installed from a reel with an injector, leaving no way for it to be
rotated to install the auger type sand screen.” (Reply Br. 7.) We do not find
this argument persuasive of non-obviousness. Appellant’s claimed invention
is directed to an apparatus, and not the method of putting the elements
thereof together. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is.” Hewlett-
Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As discussed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to
install both a sand screen and an ESP in a well completion, where the ESP is
installed with a coiled tubing and a different string is used to install the sand
screen. As Jonas teaches, a lower complete stage can be positioned, the
deployment equipment retrieved, and the next complete stage can then be
moved down toward engagement with the lower completion. (Jonas ¶ 29.)
Such a procedure would avoid Appellant’s concern about the difficulty of
using a coiled tubing to install the auger type sand screen of Cornette.
Finally, that neither Cornette nor Mack mentions thermal growth or
dealing with problems thereof and that Mack is not concerned with
downward force (Appeal Br. 16) do not convince us the Examiner’s
rejection is in error. Cornette provides a reason to include a shear means in
setting a packer where downward forces within the bore might dislodge the
packer seal. And as the Examiner indicates, “[A]ppellant has not identified
why such identical structure would be unable to perform the intended
function of shearing in response to downward axial force due to the known,
characteristic, and naturally occurring thermal expansion phenomena.”
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

10
(Ans. 10.4) Furthermore, as the Examiner notes in the Answer, and
Appellant does not contest, jarring and downhole temperature-induced tool-
length expansion are known forces that can occur in well completions, and
shear pins have been used in conjunction with both, as a means to prevent
premature release of the packer. (Ans. 8–9 (citing Burgos5 ¶ 8).)
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as being obvious over Cornette and Mack.
Claims 2, 3, and 7
For each of these claims, the Examiner first relies on Cornette as
teaching an annular seal (i.e., the contact of 28 with seal 46), but notes that
Cornette is silent on the seal comprising a plurality of annular seal rings
mounted around the tubular member. (Final Action 8, 9, 11.) The Examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to instead use Mack’s multiple seal
rings 32 mounted on the tubular member, which would be “combining prior
art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” (Id.)
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner then relies on Stewart for the
obviousness of the limitation requiring seal rings extending “over an axial
length on the tubular member that is greater than an axial length of the bore
of the packer.” (Id. at 9). The Examiner concludes that it would have been

4 In the Reply Brief, Appellant belatedly presents arguments for the first
time regarding deficiency of the Examiner’s rejection as to the identity of
the claimed seal member and the prior art. (Reply Br. 8) We do not
consider this new argument, which could have been presented in the Appeal
Brief, given the substance of the Examiner’s rejection did not change
between the Final Action and the Answer. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d at
1474.
5 US 2012/0160523 A1, published June 28, 2012
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

11
obvious to have modified Cornette as modified by Mack with the seal ring
arrangement being axially larger than the packer bore,
for the purpose of having “seal assemblies great enough to
extend from the uppermost packer through the lowermost
packer” or multiple packers (Stewart Column 2, lines 19-20)
and to provide greater confidence in full engagement with a
packer “for preventing the well fluids from flowing in an
uncontrolled manner from the producing formation through the
casing or tubing to the surface” (Stewart Column 2, lines 60-
63).
(Id.)
As for claims 3 and 7, the Examiner relies on Stewart for the
obviousness of the claim requirement that “prior to the shear pin being
sheared, at least one of the seal rings will be located above the bore of the
packer,” and for claim 7’s requirement that “after the shear pin has sheared,
at least one of the seal rings will be located below the bore of the packer.”
(Id. at 10–12.) The Examiner asserts that “Stewart teaches prior to . . . the
shear pin being sheared, at least one of the seal rings will be located above
the bore of the packer” (Id. at 10) and contends that it would have been
obvious to include this feature for the same reason it would have been
obvious to have seal rings extending over an axial length on the tubular
member that is greater than an axial length of the bore of the packer, i.e.,
having “‘seal assemblies great enough to extend from the uppermost packer
through the lowermost packer’ or multiple packers (Stewart Column 2,
lines 19-20) and to provide greater confidence in full engagement with a
packer ‘for preventing the well fluids from flowing in an uncontrolled
manner from the producing formation through the casing or tubing to the
surface’ (Stewart Column 2, lines 60-63).” (Id.)
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

12
We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with
respect to claim 2. In particular, Stewart seeks to provide for sealing off
packer 1 and packer 2 that are spaced a distance apart from one another so as
to seal off fluid flow into a damaged area of the production line. (See, e.g.,
Stewart col. 2:33–3:15.) To do so, Stewart has a set of seal rings extending
over an axial length of the tubular member that is greater than an axial
length of the bore of the packer such that there is one seal that can reach the
lower packer and still have a seal available to seal off the upper packer.
(See, e.g., id. Fig 1.) Having such an arrangement provides “a positive,
quick and sure closure . . . for preventing the well fluids from flowing in an
uncontrolled manner from the producing formation through the casing or
tubing to the surface.” (Id. at 2:60–63.)
Although we agree with the Examiner that Stewart is analogous art
because it is in the same field of invention as the claimed invention, i.e.,
completions design of a well (Ans. 11), we agree with Appellant that the
arrangement in Stewart would not have been considered by one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine with the seal arrangement in Cornette as modified
by Mack. (Appeal Br. 19.) The problem in Stewart of sealing off two
spaced apart packers and thus having multiple spaced apart annular seal
rings greater than an axial length of the bore of the packer on a string of
tubing that can be lowered into the well bore to create a seal at each of the
spaced apart packers and provide a closure in the well bore between the
packers would have no relevance (1) to the sealing in the seal sub
element 30 of Cornette where the multiple seal elements are provided in the
sub itself to engage the tubing 28 and maintain a fluid tight seal while the
tubing 28 is decoupled from the sub for reciprocation and rotary movement
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

13
to set the sand screen or (2) to the sealing in Mack in which seal rings at the
lower end of a stinger are lowered into a receptacle of a reservoir control
valve to create a fluid tight seal between the stinger, ESP, and valve so that
the ESP can pull fluid through the stinger. We conclude that the Examiner’s
reason to combine lacks a sufficient rational underpinning. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections 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.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, we similarly agree with the Appellant that
there would have been no reason to provide the tubular member of Cornette
as modified by Mack so as to have at least one of the seal rings located
above the bore of the packer prior to the shear pin shearing. First, of all
Stewart does not teach anything about “prior to” a shear pin being sheared as
Stewart does not teach shear pins at all. Second, the Examiner’s reasoning
of having the claimed arrangement to address sealing between multiple
packers is again of no relevance to Cornette or Mack for the reasons
discussed above. And, finally, the Examiner’s reasoning does not even
address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have a seal ring located
above the bore of a packer prior to a shear pin shearing. Consequently, we
do not affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 as being obvious
from Cornette, Mack, and Stewart.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 21, and 25
The Examiner explains that Mack teaches a tubular assembly
connected to the section end 26 of ESP 16 of Mack. (Final Action 12.) The
Examiner relies on Duell for the obviousness of including an external flange
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

14
below the packer on the lower end of the intake member. (See, e.g., id.
at 13.) According to the Examiner, the flange in Duell is identified in Figure
1 as part 21 on the lower end of mandrel 4, which sits in the recess 16 during
deployment of the packer, the outer diameter of the flange being greater than
the inner surface 38 of the packer. (Id.) The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
provided a flange on an inner mandrel to the packer assembly of Cornette as
modified by Mack “for the purpose of allowing the packer and an inner
tubular to be retained together while the assembly is being deployed.” (Id.)
Appellant also relies on the arguments that Cornette is not analogous
art to with respect to this rejection (Appeal Br. 12) and that the combination
of Cornette and Mack would be unworkable (id. at 17), that we discussed
above. We do not find the arguments persuasive for the reasons already
addressed.
In addition, Appellant argues that Duell cannot be combined with
Mack, which is “the only cited reference in the same field as the claimed
invention” and which is “the only cited reference disclosing running an ESP
along with a packer on coiled tubing.” (Id. at 21; see also Reply Br. 7–8.)
Appellant asserts that “[i]f Duell’s flange 22 were to be placed on intake
member 24 of Mack, the teachings of Mack would be destroyed, because the
ESP and its intake member 24 could not be retrieved from packer 34.”
(Appeal Br. 21.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument establishes error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In particular, we disagree with Appellant that
Cornette is not analogous art as discussed above. Moreover, as we also
explained above, the Examiner’s combination is the addition of an ESP with
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

15
a seal member connected into the ESP attached to a string of coiled tubing to
the completion design of Cornette that includes a packer and shear means for
retaining the body of the packer in a fixed axial position along with a sand
screen element. (See also Ans. 12 (“Mack is only incorporated to teach the
presence of an ESP and an assembly deployed on coiled tubing in lieu of
tubing (as opposed to some of the particulars of intended use and
functionality, and accompanying structure, taught by Mack.”)).)
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Considering the teachings of the
references as a whole does not require wholesale incorporation of every
feature of one prior art structure into another, but rather whether “a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
references to achieve the claimed invention.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, it is immaterial to whether the
claimed invention would have been obvious whether or not the packer could
be retrieved by the decoupling mechanism of Mack if the flange of Duell
was provided on an inner mandrel with a corresponding recess in the packer
described in Cornette. That is because the releasable extension into a
reservoir is not necessary for the obviousness of including an ESP, as
disclosed in Mack, into a completions design.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 21, and 25
as being obvious from Cornette, Mack, and Duell.
Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

16
Claims 22 and 23
Claims 22 and 23 have the same limitations regarding seal rings
discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 3. The Examiner relies on
Stewart to address these limitations. (See Final Action 23–24.) For the
reasons already discussed above, we disagree with the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion regarding the relevance of Stewart’s teachings to the
sealing described in Cornette and Mack. Thus, we do not affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23 as being obvious from Cornette,
Mack, Duell, and Stewart.

Claim 9
Claim 9 has not been argued separately (Appeal Br. 11) and therefore
falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Cornette, Mack 1
2, 3, 7 103 Cornette, Mack,
Stewart
2, 3, 7
5, 6, 8, 21,
25
103 Cornette, Mack,
Stewart, Duell
5, 6, 8, 21,
25

9 103 Cornette, Mack,
Badalamenti
9
22, 23 103 Cornette, Mack,
Duell, Stewart
22, 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 5, 6, 8, 9
21, 25
2, 3, 7, 22,
23

Appeal 2020-000995
Application 15/399,130

17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART