Ex Parte Taitt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2018

14172735 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/172,735 02/04/2014
100679 7590 07/06/2018
Eubanks PLLC (Cameron International Corporation)
12777 Jones Road
Suite 465
Houston, TX 77070
Graham M. Taitt
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SUR-032152 US
(13001-028)
EXAMINER
DANG, PHILIP
3680
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRAHAM M. TAITT
andRYANM.FORD
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172, 73 51
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest is Cameron
International Corporation and Schlumberger Limited. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 4 and 19 were cancelled previously. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to system and method for detecting the
position of the actuator flow control in a valve. Spec. 17-23.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Those claims are reproduced
below.
1. A system comprising:
a valve including:
a main body; and
an actuator to control flow through the valve, the actuator
disposed within an actuator housing coupled to the main body;
and
a position detector including a camera mounted inside a
detector housing, wherein the detector housing is installed over
an aperture in the actuator housing such that the actuator within
the actuator housing is in view of the camera through the
aperture and the position detector is configured to detect
contamination within the actuator housing via image data from
the camera.
11. A system comprising:
a housing having an open end and configured to be
coupled to a flow control device;
a camera mounted in the housing; and
electronics configured to process image data from the
camera so as to determine the position of a movable object of
the flow control device that is outside the housing and visible to
the camera through the open end.
2
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
16. A method comprising:
operating a camera mounted outside of an actuator
housing to acquire image data of a movable valve actuator
within the actuator housing; and
processing the image data to determine the position of the
movable valve actuator within the actuator housing;
wherein the method further comprises installing a
position detector on the actuator housing before operating the
camera to acquire image data of the movable valve actuator
within the actuator housing, the position detector including a
detector housing containing the camera, wherein installing the
position detector on the actuator housing includes retrofitting
the actuator housing with the position detector by removing a
viewing window from a portion of the actuator housing and
attaching the detector housing to the portion of the actuator
housing vacated by the removal of the viewing window.
App. Br. 13-15, Claims App'x.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
1. The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5, and 10-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ferik et al. (US 2013/0155227 Al;
published June 20, 2013) and Vannuffelen et al. (US 2007/0035736 Al;
published February 15, 2007).
2. The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ferik, Vannuffelen, and Lie (US 2011/0087434 Al;
published April 14, 2011 ).
3. The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ferik, Vannuffelen, and Benson et al. (US 7,679,046 Bl;
issued March 16, 2010).
3
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
4. The Examiner has rejected claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ferik, Vannuffelen, and Dunn et al. (US 2007/0044652
Al; published March 1, 2007).
5. The Examiner has rejected claims 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ferik, Vannuffelen, and Bauer (US 6,509,832
Bl; issued January 21, 2003).
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 4--12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1---6 of
the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 are in
error. These arguments present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of F erik and
Vannuffelen teaches or suggests a position detector "configured to
detect contamination within the actuator housing," as required in
claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofFerik and
Vannuffelen teaches or suggests "a housing having an open end,"
as required in claim 11?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination ofFerik and
V annuffelen teaches or suggests "removing a viewing window
from a portion of the actuator housing," as required in claim 16?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-15, but have persuaded
us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-18 and 20.
4
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
Claim 1
Appellants argue neither F erik nor V annuffelen teaches or suggests
detecting contamination within the valve actuator housing. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellants argue Vannuffelen teaches detecting
contamination via a withdrawn sample. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants further argue that there is no reason to combine F erik and
Vannuffelen. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive.
First, Appellants' arguments that the combination of Ferik and
V annuffelen does not teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue are not
persuasive, because they do not address the rejection as proposed by the
Examiner. The Examiner finds Ferik teaches a system using a camera to
monitor the positon of the valve stem, thus providing video of the nearby
liquid while monitoring the valve's positon; the Examiner also finds
Vannuffelen teaches using a camera to monitor a liquid for contaminants.
Ans. 23-24; Final Act. 5---6. As such, the Examiner relies on Ferik to teach
monitoring within the valve actuator housing, not Vannuffelen as argued by
Appellants. Ans. 23-24; see App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3; Final Act. 5. The
Examiner only relies on Vannuffelen to teach contamination detection. Ans.
22-23; Final Act. 6.
Second, the Examiner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the teachings of Ferik and Vannuffelen to detect
contamination, within the valve actuator housing, in real-time. Ans. 24;
Final Act. 6. Appellants have not addressed why the Examiner's motivation
to combine is in error, and, thus, the argument is unpersuasive. See App. Br.
7.
5
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Ferik and Vannuffelen teaches or suggests a position
detector "configured to detect contamination within the actuator housing," as
required in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 5-
10 depend from claim 1 and Appellants do not present separate arguments
for those claims. See App. Br. 7, 9, 10, Claims App'x. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-10 for the same reasons as set
forth above for claim 1.
Claim 11
Appellants argue Ferik does not teach or suggest a housing with "an
open end" to view the flow control device. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4--5.
Specifically, Appellants argue Ferik's housing (camera body 40) lacks an
open end because it, being waterproof and dustproof, lacks a hole. App. Br.
8-9; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
Appellants' argument is based on an improperly narrow claim
interpretation limiting the term open end to require a physical hole, which is
not supported by the Specification. App. Br. 8. As the Examiner states,
Ferik's camera housing has an open end with a transparent cover where the
camera is coupled to the flow control device, so the light can illuminate and
the camera can view the flow control device. Ans. 26. The Examiner's
broader claim interpretation of the open end as a transparent cover allowing
illumination and viewing is reasonable.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
F erik teaches "a housing [with] an open end," as required in claim 11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's
6
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
rejection of independent claim 11. Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11 and
Appellants do not present separate arguments for those claims. See App. Br.
14--15, Claims App'x. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
12-15 for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 11.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites, "removing a viewing window from a portion of the
actuator housing and attaching the detector housing to the portion of the
actuator housing vacated by the removal of the viewing window." App. Br.
15, Claims App'x.
The Examiner finds Bauer teaches a camera which can be mounted to
a window frame structure or mounted behind the window to view an object
through the window. Final Act. 20; Ans. 34--35. The Examiner states that
changing the position of parts, such as the position of the viewing window
and the detector housing, would not modify the operation or the position
detector or the window, and, is thus, unpatentable. Final Act. 20-21; Ans.
35 (citing In re Japikse, 181F.2d1019 (CCPA 1950)).
Appellants argue that the Bauer reference does not teach removing a
window and attaching a camera in the space vacated by the window, as
claimed. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5---6.
We agree with Appellants that a camera being attached to the window
frame outside the window or being mounted inside the window, as relied
upon by the Examiner in Bauer, is not the same as removing a window and
attaching the camera to the portion of the housing vacated by the window
removal. See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5-6. Furthermore, the Examiner's
citation to Japikse as rationale for concluding that the rearrangement of the
7
Appeal2017-011533
Application 14/172,735
window and the camera housing would have been obvious is improper,
because the claim requires that the window be eliminated, not rearranged.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
16 and of claims 17, 18, and 20 which depend from claim 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-15 are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 16-18 and 20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8