Ex Parte Ge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2013

11120720 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YAOGEN GE
____________________

Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yaogen Ge (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9, 16, 18-24, 28, and 29. Br. 5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 16, and 28 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reads:
1. A spinner assembly for threading or
unthreading substantially vertical oilfield tubular
members above a floor at a well site, comprising:
a spinner housing having an open throat for
receiving a tubular member therein, said spinner
housing having a common axis;
a plurality of rollers rotatable about a
substantially vertical axis and adapted to engage
said tubular member positioned within said throat;
a plurality of motors for rotating the rollers;
a plurality of driving shafts, each driving
shaft being connected to one of said plurality of
motors and having an elongated portion of
polygonal shape in cross section,
a pair of substantially coaxial, opposing
brackets supporting the rollers and motors and
disposed within said spinner housing on opposite
sides of said throat, said brackets being movable
within said spinner housing in a direction towards
and away from said throat, wherein said brackets
and rollers move in and out of the spinner housing
in opposite directions in a substantially straight
line along said common axis;
a pair of actuators disposed within said
spinner housing on opposite sides of said throat,
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

3
each actuator including a first end connected to
said spinner housing and a second end attached to
one of said brackets for moving said brackets and
rollers along said common axis;
each of said plurality of rotatable rollers
having a central polygonal passageway for directly
mating with one of said driving shafts;
each roller having two or more axially
spaced cylindrical portions, a lower surface of an
upper cylindrical portion spaced above an upper
surface of a lower cylindrical portion;
each cylindrical portion having a plurality of
arcuate members each having a partially
cylindrical exterior surface and end surfaces
spaced adjacent ends of a respective exterior
surface, each end surface of each arcuate member
being in planar engagement with an end surface of
an adjoining arcuate member, and the end surfaces
of the upper cylindrical portion being
circumferentially offset from the end surfaces of
the adjoining lower cylindrical portion; and
each roller having a plurality of fasteners
each extending between and interconnecting the
two or more axially spaced cylindrical portions,
wherein each arcuate member can be removed
from the spinner assembly by removing only a
plurality of fasteners, without removing any other
component except the roller's each arcuate member
itself.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belik ’502 (US 7,000,502 B2; issued Feb. 21, 2006) in
view of, or as evidenced by, Belik ’845 (US 6,253,845 B1; issued Jul. 3,
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

4
2001), and further in view of Junck (US 6,276,238 B1; issued Aug. 21,
2001) and Beier (US 6,510,762 B1; issued Jan. 28, 2003).
Claims 16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belik ’502 in view of, or as evidenced by, Belik ’845, and
further in view of Beier.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belik ’502 in view of, or as evidenced by, Belik ’845, and
further in view of Junck.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 — Belik ’502, Belik ’845, Junck, and Beier
Belik ’502 discloses a drill pipe spinner including clamping arms 15,
20, which are pivotally connected to each other by an arm pin 25. Belik
’502, col. 3, ll. 27-30; fig. 1. Roller brackets 30, 35 are connected to the
distal ends of clamping arms 15, 20 by roller bracket pins 40, 45. Id. at col.
3, ll. 41-45; fig. 1. Each of the roller brackets 30, 35 includes a pair of drive
roller assemblies. Id. at col. 3, ll. 45-47; fig. 1. The roller bracket pins 40,
45 are removable to allow the roller brackets 30, 35 and their associated
drive roller assemblies to be removed from clamping arms 15, 20. Id. at col.
2, ll. 31-46. The clamping arms 15, 20 are pivotal about the arm pin 25 from
an open position (fig. 3A) to a closed position (fig. 3B) to engage with a drill
pipe disposed between the drive roller assemblies. The rollers 85 of the
drive roller assemblies are driven to rotate the drill pipe (id. at col. 4, ll. 1-2;
fig. 1) to make up or break out the pipe (id. at col. 3, ll. 30-34).
Junck discloses a rotating vise including opposed jaw assemblies 25,
which are moved toward and away from each other by hydraulic cylinders
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

5
32 and pistons 30. Junck, col. 3, ll. 30-33; fig. 1. The jaw assemblies 25 are
also rotated by a hydraulic cylinder 15 and piston 14. Id. at col. 3, ll. 12-17;
compare figs. 1 and 2. The vise is used to break joints in a drill string. Id. at
col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 6.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found that Belik ’502 discloses the
claimed spinner assembly except for “a pair of substantially coaxial,
opposing brackets” and “a pair of actuators.” Ans. 3-5. The Examiner
found that Junck teaches substantially coaxial, opposing brackets 25 and a
pair of actuators 32 having the claimed features, and concluded that it would
have been obvious to modify the Belik ’502 brackets 15, 20 (clamping arms)
(see Ans. 4) with Junck’s brackets and actuators to result in movable
brackets that allow different sized tubular members to be more easily and
effectively secured between them (id. at 5-6).
Appellant contends that the Examiner did not clarify how the Belik
’502 spinner would be modified in view of Junck. Br. 15-16. In response,
the Examiner explained that the combination would attach the roller
supporters 30, 35 (roller brackets) of Belik ’502 to the brackets (25) of
Junck. Ans. 14. The Examiner also stated that the combination could still
have the quick release mechanism 40 of Belik ’502 (id. at 14; see also id. at
15), “while providing brackets that move substantially along a straight line
instead of providing pivotal brackets (15 and 20) [clamping arms], as shown
in Belik” (id. at 14; emphasis added). Accordingly, we understand that the
Examiner’s combination would result in Belik ’502’s clamping arms 15, 20
being unable to pivot, and in Belik ’502’s roller brackets 30, 35 being able to
move only substantially along a straight line.
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

6
Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would have had no
reason to look to Junck’s rotating vise to improve or enhance the functioning
of Belik ’502’s spinner, because the vise and spinner have such different
structures and functions. Br. 17-18. We agree. Moreover, even if one
skilled in the art were to have looked to Junck, the Examiner’s stated
motivation for the combination—that it would allow different sized tubular
members to more easily and effectively be engaged to outer surfaces of the
rollers by actuation of the brackets—is speculative. This is because Belik
’502’s clamping arms 15, 20 are pivotable from an open position to a closed
position to engage with a drill pipe, and thus, Belik ‘502’s spinner is already
usable with different-sized pipes by varying the amount of pivoting of the
clamping arms 15, 20. The Examiner has not explained why Belik ‘502’s
spinner is inadequate, or how the modification that would eliminate pivoting
of the clamping arms 15, 20 would result in the spinner being able to be used
with a greater range of pipe sizes than is already achievable by the pivotable
clamping arms 15, 25. Thus, the Examiner has not articulated an adequate
reason with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would
have substantially modified Belik ’502 in this manner. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-5 and 9.
Rejection of claims 16 and 18-24 — Belik ’502, Belik ’845, and Beier
Claims 16 and 18-22
Claim 16 is directed to a “coreless roller for a spinner assembly,” and
requires that “each cylindrical portion hav[e] a central polygonal
passageway for directly mating with a driving shaft” and “each arcuate
member within the entire roller is interconnected to each other to form a
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

7
complete roller without a central support member.” Claims App’x.
(emphasis added).
Appellant points out that claim 16 requires a “coreless” roller and a
“roller without a central support member” (Br. 20), whereas Figures 1 and 9
of Belik ’845 illustrate rollers that include core elements (id. at 20-22). As
to Figure 1, Appellant cites to disclosure in Belik ’845 that describes that the
roller 10 includes a core member 12. Id. at 21; see Belik ’845, col. 5, ll. 12-
20. As to Figure 9, Appellant cites to disclosure in Belik ’845 that describes
that the roller 200 includes a core member 202, a first core member 206, and
a second core member 208. Id. at 22; see Belik ’845, col. 10, ll. 37-49.
In response, the Examiner stated that element 12 in Belik ’845 is part
of the drive shaft “since it directly attaches to drive shaft [80]” (Ans. 17
(citing Belik ’845, figs. 3, 4), and that “[b]y interpreting element (12) as
being part of the drive shaft, rollers (10) includes various hollow or coreless
segments (as seen in Figure 11a-11j)” (id.). The Examiner also stated “the
core as argued by [Appellant] is being interpreted as meeting the structural
limitations of the elongated portion of the driving shaft (see claim 1),” and
that Appellant “merely renamed a core as being an elongated portion of a
driving shaft.” Id.
We note that Figure 3 of Belik ’845 shows the roller 10 connected to
the shaft 80 of motor 76 and to the shaft 86 of motor 82 to drive and rotate
roller 10. Belik ’845, col. 7, ll. 31-40. The shaft 80 of motor 76 extends into
the central aperture 32 of the core member 12 of roller 10. Id. at col. 7,
ll. 33-35 and ll. 48-50; fig. 4. The central aperture 32 includes splines 60
which engage with mating splines on the motor shaft. Id. at col. 7, ll. 20-23;
fig. 2. We further note that Figure 9 of Belik ’845 shows another
Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

8
embodiment 200 of the roller including the stacked annular members 204.
Id. at col. 10, ll. 37-40.
Based on the Examiner’s statement that Appellant “merely renamed a
core as being an elongated portion of a driving shaft,” we understand that the
Examiner construed “coreless roller” as excluding “an elongated portion of a
driving shaft.” Ans. 17. We further understand that the Examiner
determined that Belik ’845’s roller 10 is a “coreless roller” for the reason
that the core member 12 is not actually part of the roller 10, but rather is part
of a drive shaft that drives the roller 10. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Belik ’845 explicitly
describes the rollers 10, 200 as including respective core members 12, 202.
The core members 12, 202 are integral elements of the rollers 10, 200. In
addition, Belik ’845 separately describes motor drive shafts for rotating the
rollers. Belik ’845 discloses that the splines 60 of the core member 12
engage with the drive shaft, not that the “cylindrical portions” of the roller
10 or 200 directly mate with a drive shaft. The core members 12, 202 are
permanent “central support members” of the roller 10, 200, including when
the roller is not mating with a drive shaft. Hence, the Examiner did not
establish that Belik ’845 discloses a “coreless roller,” or the claim limitation
reciting “each arcuate member within the entire roller is interconnected to
each other to form a complete roller without a central support member.”
The Examiner’s application of Beier for the rejection of claim 16
(Ans. 9-10) does not cure the deficiencies of Belik ’502 and Belik ’845.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16, and its dependent claims
18-22.

Appeal 2011-010636
Application 11/120,720

9
Claims 23 and 24
As discussed supra, the Examiner relied on the teachings of Junck to
address deficiencies of Belik ’502 for the rejection of claim 1. However, the
Examiner did not rely on Junck for the rejection of claims 23 and 24, which
depend from claim 1. See Ans. 11. Moreover, as discussed supra, Junck
does not cure the deficiencies of Belik ’502. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 23 and 24.
Rejection of claims 28 and 29 — Belik ’502, Belik ’845, and Junck
Claim 28 is directed to a spinner assembly comprising, inter alia, “a
pair of brackets” having features similar to those of the brackets recited in
claim 1. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 28, and its
dependent claim 29, for reasons similar to those discussed supra for the
rejection of claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 9, 16, 18-24, 28, and 29 are
REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh