Ex Parte Zifferer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

12707320 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/707,320 02/17/2010 L. Robert Zifferer
35690 7590 08/24/2018
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
5041-02502/EBM 2327
EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte L. ROBERT ZIPPERER and EDWARD A. REED
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
L. Robert Zifferer and Edward A. Reed ("Appellants") 1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--17,
19, and 111-136.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Packless Metal Hose,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 18, and 20-110 are cancelled. See Amendment (Dec. 8, 2016).
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 111, and 117 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A lined conduit for a heat exchanger, comprising:
a conduit with an inner surface, wherein the conduit is
used as a heat exchanger; and
a liner connected to the inner surface of the conduit,
wherein the liner comprises a metal material that has been
decorrugated, wherein a thickness of the decorrugated metal
material is less than about 1/4 of the thickness of the conduit
adjacent to, and radially displaced from, the decorrugated metal
material.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Mekler us 1,968,088 July 31, 1934
Armstrong us 2,258,564 Oct. 7, 1941
McLaughlin us 4,217,886 Aug. 19, 1980
Scragg us 4,233,101 Nov. 11, 1980
Gross us 4,688,319 Aug.25, 1987
Hall '880 US 6,670,880 B 1 Dec. 30, 2003
Hall '659 US 2004/0020659 Al Feb. 5,2004
Hall '717 US 7,243,717 B2 July 1 7, 2007
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--17, 114,115, and 117-131 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Mekler and McLaughlin.
Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
II. Claims 1, 2, 4--17, and 112-131 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin and Hall '717. Id. at 4--5.
III. Claims 111 and 132-136 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Scragg. Id. at 5---6.
IV. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Gross. Id. at 6.
V. Claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19, 112-118, 120-132, and 135 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '717, Hall '880,
and McLaughlin. Id. at 6-9.
VI. Claims 4 and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hall '717, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and Armstrong.
Id. at 11-12.
VII. Claims 1, 2, 5-17, 112, 113, 116-118, 120-128, 131, 132, and 135
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hall '659, Hall '880, and McLaughlin. Id. at 9-11.
VIII. Claims 4 and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hall '659, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and Armstrong.
Id. at 11-12.
IX. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hall '659, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and Gross. Id. at 12.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Mekler teaches, in relevant part, a "lined
conduit 1, the conduit has an inner surface, a liner 2 connected by friction to
the inner surface of the conduit, the liner is metal, has longitudinal
3
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
corrugations which can be decorrugated, ... [and] during hydraulic
pressurization of the interior, the decorrugation occurs within the conduit."
Final Act. 2. The Examiner acknowledges that that Mekler does not teach
"forming the pipe as a heat exchanger." Id. at 3. However, the Examiner
finds that "McLaughlin discloses that it is old and well known to form lined
pipes with fins to permit them to be used as heat exchange pipes." Id. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
Id.
to utilize a lined pipe in Mekler as a heat exchange pipe [b ]y
forming such as a metal liner in a metal pipe that contact one
another[,] as suggested by McLaughlin[,] which teaches a known
use for a metal lined metal pipe where . . . fins can also be
provided to improve heat exchange properties if such is the
desired use for the lined pipe, especially when such is directed at
functioning with a temperature sensitive material which would
benefit from transferring some heat away from the liner.
Appellants argue that "Mekler appears to teach a corrugated liner for a
vessel which expands and contracts with temperature to inhibit damage to
the liner; however, Mekler does not appear to teach a corrugated liner
positioned in a conduit for use as a heat exchanger." Appeal Br. 10. To the
extent Appellants are arguing that Mekler's vessel does not constitute a
conduit, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As the Examiner
explains, Mekler's vessel "is a tubular member 1 that has a larger central
diameter and smaller ends which can be capped by 4, however, it still
teaches a tubular member which would form a conduit with ends that can be
capped." Ans. 12. In this regard, the Examiner's finding is consistent with
the ordinary and customary meaning for the term "conduit" and the use of
4
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
the tenn in the Specification. 3 Appellants do not persuasively explain why
the Examiner's position is in error.
Appellants argue that "Mekler does not appear to disclose an inner
corrugated liner which has been decorrugated such that the inner liner
connects to the inner surface of the conduit." Appeal Br. 10. In particular,
Appellants assert that "[t]he corrugated liner of Mekler is not permanently
decorrugated to form a heat exchanger or anything else for that matter." Id.
This argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1, which does not require a liner that is "permanently"
decorrugated. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (noting that
it is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability). Instead, claim 1 only recites that "the liner
comprises a metal material that has been decorrugated." Appeal Br. 39
(Claims App.). In this regard, Appellants do not persuasively refute the
Examiner's finding that Mekler teaches such a feature. See Final Act. 2.
Moreover, although claims are interpreted in light of the Specification,
Appellants' argument (Reply Br. 2) does not point us to any disclosure in the
Specification that would necessitate an interpretation of claim 1 as requiring
a permanently decorrugated liner.
3 We note that an ordinary and customary meaning of the term "conduit" is
"a natural or artificial channel through which something (as a fluid) flows."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2005). This ordinary
meaning is consistent with the claim language and Appellants' Specification,
which does not impart any special definitions to compel a different, or
narrower, construction of "conduit," as recited in the claim. See Spec. 1,
1. 18 ( describing "conduits, such as tubes and pipe").
5
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of
Mekler and McLaughlin is in error. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants assert
that, "[ d]ue to the fact that Mekler appears to teach a corrugated liner used to
take up any contraction/ expansion due to temperature changes[,] it is not
apparent why one would combine the heat exchanger of McLaughlin with
Mekler." Id. at 10. According to Appellants, "[i]t is not clear why one
would combine the technology [ of] Mekler[,] which uses a temporarily
expandable liner which functions as a heat insulator[,] with McLaughlin[,]
wh[ich] appears to teach the permanent expansion of an interior liner such
that a heat exchanger is formed." Id. at 10-11. We are not persuaded by
this line of argument because it does not specifically address the Examiner's
reasoning articulated in support of the conclusion of obviousness or
adequately explain why the Examiner's reasoning lacks rational
underpinnings. See Final Act. 3 (reasoning that modifying Mekler's conduit
for use as a heat exchanger by providing McLaughlin's fins would improve
the heat exchange properties of Mekler, and provide a benefit in transferring
heat from the liner); Ans. 13 (explaining that Mekler involves high
temperatures, and adding McLaughlin's heat exchanger fins to Mekler
would provide additional surface area for heat transfer).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Mekler and McLaughlin
renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4--17, 114, 115, and 117-
131, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments ( Appeal Br. 8-11,
6
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
28-36),4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mekler and
McLaughlin.
Re} ections II and IV
In Rejection II, the Examiner finds that "McLaughlin discloses all of
the recited structure with the exception of specific materials, thicknesses,
and forming the liner from a decorrugated tube." Final Act. 4. However,
the Examiner finds that Hall '717 teaches "a first conduit 34 with an inner
surface, a liner 3 6 connected to the inner surface of the first conduit wherein
the liner comprises a material that has been corrugated and decorrugated,
and wherein a thickness of the liner before corrugation can be 0.04 or 0.02
inches thick[,] ... [and], as seen in the figures[,] the thickness of the liner is
less than 1/4 of the thickness of the first conduit at least at the flanged end."
Id. at 4--5; see also id. at 5 (explaining that "it is also recited in Hall ['717]
that the thickness of the pipe is 0.080" with a thickened end portion, and if
the liner were 0.02" thick it would actually be 1/4 of the thickness of the
pipe portion"). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to modify the conduit of McLaughlin by forming the conduit of
any desired metals including steels, forming the liner of a
corrugated material which decorrugates into contact with the
outer conduit of a specific thickness as suggested by Hall where
such are known materials and thicknesses used for metal lined
pipes, and decorrugating the liner would provide an improved
4 To the extent Appellants' assertion in the Reply Brief that "some of the
dependent claims" "are clear that the liner is permanently decorrugated"
(Reply Br. 2) might be considered a separate argument for patentability for
some of the dependent claims, we do not find such an assertion to be
persuasive of Examiner error. Appellants do not identify, and it is not
readily apparent, which dependent claims purportedly are limited to
permanently decorrugated liners, and Appellants do not adequately explain
why any claims must be so interpreted.
7
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
method over the forces needed to force the reamer through to
expand the liner where corrugations would require less force to
decorrugate a material than to force expansion.
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Hall '717 does not teach or suggest "a metal
material that has been decorrugated, wherein a thickness of the decorrugated
metal material is less than about 1/4 of the thickness of the conduit adjacent
to, and radially displaced from, the decorrugated metal material," as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellants assert that "Hall [']717
appears to teach that the thickness of the wall of the transition regions at the
end of the corrugated section of the liner is one half the wall thickness or
greater than the thickness of the liner wall." Id. ( citing Hall '717, col. 5, 11.
39-49). We are not persuaded by this argument.
Hall '717 teaches metal tube 36 having non-uniform section 46 with
protruded corrugations or protrusions 4 7 along its length. Hall '717, col. 5,
11. 40-44. At the ends of each protrusion 47 of metal tube 36 are transition
regions 56. Id., col. 5, 11. 44--45. "The wall thickness of region 56 may
range from between about one half the wall thickness to greater than the
thickness of the tube wall." Id., 11. 46-49 (emphasis added). In other words,
Hall '717 teaches that transition region 56 of metal tube 36 is from about
one half to greater than the wall thickness of the remainder of metal tube 3 6,
and we fail to see how such a fact demonstrates error in the Examiner's
finding that Hall '717 teaches that the thickness of the liner (i.e., metal tube
36) is less than 1/4 of the thickness of the conduit (i.e., drill pipe 34), as
required by claim 1. See Final Act. 4--5. Further, Hall '717 teaches that
metal tube 36 with protruded corrugations 47 is inserted into drill pipe 34
(i.e., conduit), and the metal tube is mechanically or hydraulically expanded
8
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
against the inside surface of the drill pipe. Hall '717, col. 5, 1. 65---col. 6, 1.
10. In this regard, Appellants do not offer any evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning to refute the Examiner's finding that Hall '717 teaches a
"liner compris[ing] a metal material that has been decorrugated," as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 15 (finding that Hall '717 "clearly
teaches decorrugating a thin metal sleeve inside a thicker pipe").
Appellants argue that Examiner's rejection is based upon
impermissible hindsight reconstruction, and "there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of McLaughlin with Hall
'717." Appeal Br. 14 (citing MPEP §§ 2142, 2145; In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)). This argument is unpersuasive because
Appellants do not specifically point to any knowledge relied on by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. rvioreover, Appellants do not identify any flaw in the Examiner's
reasoning articulated in support of the conclusion of obviousness, or explain
why this reasoning lacks rational underpinnings. Final Act. 5; Ans. 14-16.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of McLaughlin and Hall '717
renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4--17, and 112-131, for
which Appellants rely on the same arguments (Appeal Br. 11-14, 28-36),
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin and Hall '717.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Gross (Rejection
IV), Appellants rely on the same argmnents and reasoning we found
9
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
unpersuasive in connection with Rejection II of claim l. id. at 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
Rejection I{ we also sustain Rejection IV.
Re} ection III
In rejecting independent claim 111, the Examiner relies on the
combined teachings of McLaughlin and Hall '717 presented in Rejection II
(Final Act. 5) and further acknowledges that "McLaughlin as modified [ does
not] specifically recite using a vacuum to evacuate ... between the liner and
conduit" (id. at 5---6). However, the Examiner finds that "Scragg discloses
that it is old and well known in the art to provide a vacuum to evacuate
between the liner and conduit." Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious "to modify the method in McLaughlin as modified
by [Hall '717] [to] us[e] a vacuum to evacuate the space between the liner
and conduit as suggested by Scragg where such would [ e ]nsure a proper
expansion of the liner to properly fit within the conduit." Id.
Appellants' arguments relating to the perceived deficiencies of
McLaughlin and Hall '717, and Scragg's failure to remedy these perceived
deficiencies (Appeal Br. 14, 15), are not persuasive because we have found
no such deficiencies in the combination of McLaughlin and Hall '717. We
have also considered Appellants' argument that, because "Hall '71 7 inserts a
formed liner into a conduit and Scragg forms the liner in situ, one of
ordinary skill would not have combined the teachings of Hall '717 with the
teachings of Scragg in the manner proposed by the Examiner." Appeal Br.
15. We are not persuaded by this argument. Simply because there are
differences between two references is insufficient to make a prima face case
of obviousness impossible. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed.
10
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
Cir. 1992). Even if Scragg forms a conduit liner in situ, Appellants have not
adequately explained why this would prevent Scragg from leading one of
ordinary skill in the art to evacuate a space between a liner and conduit in
accordance with the Examiner's rejection. See Final Act. 6. Appellants
have not provided any factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to
explain why modifying the method of McLaughlin/Hall '717 to include
evacuating the space between the liner and conduit, as taught by Scragg,
would yield anything other than a predictable result, or that doing so would
be somehow beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSic Int 'l Co.
v. Tele:flex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Moreover, to the extent Appellants are arguing that the suction used to
expand Scragg's liner would not be capable of expanding a corrugated metal
tube (Reply Br. 4), this unsupported assertion is not persuasive because it is
mere attorney argument, which cannot take the place of evidence in the
record. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Here,
Appellants do not offer any factual evidence to support an assertion that the
teachings of Scragg could not be applied to the teachings of McLaughlin and
Hall '717 to expand a metal corrugated tube.
Appellants also argue that "applying the teaching of Scragg to Hall
'717 would defeat the intent and purpose of Hall '717's invention of not
having to evacuate or heat a liner to install the liner in the conduit." Appeal
Br. 15. Such an argument is unpersuasive because Appellants too narrowly
define the purpose of Hall '717. Appellants do not point to, nor do we
discern, any disclosure in Hall '717 that its intended purpose is specifically
"not having to evacuate or heat a liner to install the liner in the conduit." Id.
Instead, Hall '717 teaches "putting a metal tube as a liner into a drill pipe for
11
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
the purpose of improving the corrosion resistance of the drill pipe and for
providing a passageway for electrical conductors and fluid flow." Hall '717,
col. 1, 11. 33-36. In this regard, we are not persuaded that applying the
teachings of Scragg to the combination of McLaughlin and Hall '717 would
somehow render Hall '717 unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as a liner
for a drill pipe. Scragg merely teaches another technique (i.e., suction) for
expanding the liner in the pipe. See Ans. 16 (stating "it is old and well
known ... that applying suction to expand the liner can be used as well as
positive pressure inside the liner when expanding thin liners into pipes").
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of McLaughlin, Hall '717, and
Scragg renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 111.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 111, and its dependent claims
132-136, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning
(Appeal Br. 36-37), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Scragg.
Rejections V and VI
In Rejection V, the Examiner makes the same findings with respect to
Hall '717 as in Rejection II. Final Act. 6-8. Even if Hall '717 does not
explicitly teach "that the liner is less than a 1/4 of a radial portion of the
conduit" (id. at 8), the Examiner alternatively finds that the
Hall '880 reference discloses that pipes can be formed with a
wire provided in the wall of the pipe and as seen in the figures
such as figure 3 there is at least some pipe wall thickness
surrounding the wire, and the wire is disclosed as being at least
~ inch in diameter ... , and since the pipe wall is at least thicker
than ~ inch then such is taught by '8 80 Hall and is incorporated
into the '717 Hall reference.
12
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Hall '717's liner "to be used in other thicker conduits such that the liner is
less than ~ the thickness of the conduit[,] as suggested by using such on the
Hall '880 pipe[,] where such would allow for greater uses for the liner of
Hall[,] thereby increasing its usefulness which would increase the value of
the liner." Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that Hall '717 does not teach "forming
the pipe as a heat exchanger," but finds that "McLaughlin discloses that it is
old and well known to form lined pipes with fins to permit them to be used
as heat exchange pipes." Id. at 9. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to modify the lined pipe of Hall '717 for use as heat
exchanger by including fins, as taught by McLaughlin, in order "to improve
heat exchange properties." Id.
Appellants' arguments relating to the perceived deficiencies of Hall
'717 and Hall '880's failure to remedy these perceived deficiencies (Appeal
Br. 18-19) are not persuasive because we have found no such deficiencies in
Hall '717. We have also considered Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's proposed combination of Hall '717 and Hall '880 is not
supported by sufficient reasoning. Id. at 19-21. In particular, Appellants
assert "that mere incorporation by reference of one patent into another does
not circumvent the requirements for the Office to provide clear, articulated
reasoning as to how combining the teachings of the cited references would
actually result in the specific aspects of Applicants' claim." Id. at 20.
According to Appellants, the Examiner's reasoning "amount[ s] to nothing
more than saying it would be obvious to combine the references because the
combination would be obvious," which is "conclusory and circular." Id.
13
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
Appellants also argue that the articulated reason for combining Hall '717
and Hall '880 "relies on information gleaned solely from [Appellants']
[S]pecification" and "is absent from the cited art." Id. at 19--20. Appellants'
arguments are unconvincing.
As discussed supra, the Examiner reasons that using Hall '717's liner
in a thicker conduit such that the liner is less than ~ the conduit thickness
"would allow for greater uses for the liner of Hall[,] thereby increasing its
usefulness which would increase the value of the liner." Final Act. 8. The
Examiner also explains in the Answer that
[i]t is considered obvious to modify the outer drill string pipe of
... Hall [']717 by providing such with a thicker wall such that a
wire can be passed through the wall as suggested by . . . Hall
[']880 where such would provide for wires to not be attached to
the interior of the pipe[,] which would be needed especially in
... Hall [']717 which would have an inner liner[;] that way the
wire can be in place in the pipe wall and still permit the lining in
[']717 to be expanded into complete contact with the pipe
interior. Therefore, the teachings of the Hall [']880 reference
would be preferable especially when one wishes to transmit
power or sensor lines through the drill string pipe without
interfering with the interior surface of the pipe, especially when
one is expanding a liner therein, thereby teaching motivation to
combine the teachings of the [']880 Hall reference with the Hall
[']717 reference.
Ans. 18. In this regard, Appellants do not specifically address the
Examiner's reasoning presented in the rejection and clarified in the Answer
so as to adequately explain why this reasoning lacks rational underpinnings.
Moreover, Appellants do not specifically point to any knowledge relied on
by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that
was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. To the extent Appellants are suggesting that the Examiner's
14
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
reasoning must be set forth in the cited prior art, the motivation for
combining teachings from references need not come from the references
themselves. See Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of McLaughlin with the teachings of Hall '717 and Hall '880,
including relying on impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 21. Appellants
assert that Hall '717 and Hall '880 disclose forming drill strings with liners,
whereas McLaughlin discloses a heat exchanger, and "[i]t is not apparent
why one would combine the teachings of drill string piping with heat
exchanger technology." Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments
because they do not specifically address the Examiner's articulated
reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to modify the Hall '717 /
Hall '8 80 conduit for use as a heat exchanger by providing McLaughlin's
fins. See Final Act. 9 (reasoning that the proposed modification would
improve heat exchange properties of the lined conduit).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Hall '717, Hall '880, and
McLaughlin renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 5-17, 19,
112-118, 120-132, and 135, for which Appellants rely on the same
arguments (Appeal Br. 17-22, 28-37), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hall '717, Hall '880, and McLaughlin.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 119 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '717, Hall '880, McLaughlin,
and Armstrong (Rejection VI), Appellants rely on the same arguments and
15
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with Rejection V. Id. at 26----
27. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
Rejection V, we also sustain Rejection VI.
Re} ections VII-IX
In Rejection VII of claim 1, the Examiner's findings as to the
disclosure of Hall '659 are essentially the same as the findings regarding the
disclosure of Hall '717 presented in Rejections II and V of claim 1.
Compare Final Act. 9-11, with id. at 6-9. Likewise, Appellants' arguments
presented against Hall '659 with respect to Rejection VII are substantially
the same as the arguments presented against Hall '717 with respect to
Rejection V. Compare Appeal Br. 22-26, with id. at 17-22. For the same
reasons that Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection V,
these arguments also do not apprise us of error in Rejection VII.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 5-17, 112,
113, 116-118, 120-128, 131, 132, and 135, for which Appellants rely on the
same arguments and reasoning (id. at 22-26, 28-37), under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '659, Hall '880, and McLaughlin.
With respect to Rejection VIII of claims 4 and 119, and Rejection IX
of claim 19, Appellants rely on the same argmnents and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with Rejection VU of claim 1. Id. at 27-28 .
. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
Rejection VII, we also sustain Rejections VIII and IX.
16
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--17, 114, 115, and
117-131 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mekler and
McLaughlin is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--17, and 112-131
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin and Hall '717 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 111 and 132-136 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Scragg
is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over McLaughlin, Hall '717, and Gross is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19, 112-118,
120-132, and 135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '717,
Hall '880, and McLaughlin is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4 and 119 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '717, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and
Armstrong is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-17, 112, 113, 116-
118, 120-128, 131, 132, and 135 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hall '659, Hall '880, and McLaughlin is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 4 and 119 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hall '659, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and
Armstrong is affirmed.
17
Appeal2017-010743
Application 12/707 ,320
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hall '659, Hall '880, McLaughlin, and Gross is
affirmed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18