GE Oil & Gas ESP, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2020001196 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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.
14/054,398 10/15/2013 Matthew Allen Schoelen P2020US01 8673
22267 7590 03/18/2021
CROWE & DUNLEVY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BRANIFF BUILDING
324 NORTH ROBINSON AVENUE, SUITE 100
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102-8273
EXAMINER
KASTURE, DNYANESH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
IPMail@crowedunlevy.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW ALLEN SCHOELEN, CHENGBAO WANG,
COLBY LANE LOVELESS, VISHAL GAHLOT, and MARK JAMES
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, and 12–21, which are all
of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GE Oil & Gas ESP,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “industrial pumping systems, and
more particularly to pump systems used in high-pressure applications.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A pump assembly for use within a pumping system, the
pump assembly comprising:
a pump housing that has an exterior surface, wherein the
pump housing contains one or more centrifugal pump stages, an
upstream flange and a downstream flange, wherein the
upstream flange and downstream flange are connected to, and
extend radially outward from, opposite ends of the exterior
surface of the pump housing;
a pump head secured to the pump housing with redundant
connections, wherein the pump head includes a head flange and
wherein the head is connected to the pump housing with an
internal threaded connection and an external flanged
connection, wherein the external flanged connection comprises
the head flange, the downstream flange and a plurality of bolts
securing the head flange to the downstream flange; and
a pump base secured to the pump housing;
wherein the pump base includes a base flange and
wherein the pump base is connected to the pump housing with
an internal threaded connection and an external flanged
connection, wherein the external flanged connection comprises
the base flange, the upstream flange and a plurality of bolts
securing the base flange to the upstream flange.
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Walker US 1,939,936 Dec. 19, 1933
Erickson US 4,278,399 July 14, 1981
Elliott US 4,477,236 Oct. 16, 1984
Sneddon US 5,017,087 May 21, 1991
LaRose US 2007/0100196 A1 May 3, 2007
Woods US 2008/0035227 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
Lee US 2008/0056883 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
McCutchen US 2009/0013867 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Bartman US 2012/0169046 A1 July 5, 2012
Pettigrew ’427 US 2015/0083427 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
Pettigrew WO 2012/097440 A1 July 26, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of
Bartman.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of Bartman, and
Woods.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of Bartman, and
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of Bartman and
Erickson.
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

4
Claims 15 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee in view of Bartman.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of Bartman and LaRose.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of Bartman and Elliott.
Claims 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pettigrew2 in view of Sneddon and Walker.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pettigrew in view of Sneddon, Walker, and Erickson
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pettigrew in view of Sneddon, Walker, and Woods.
OPINION
Obviousness—Claims 1–5 and 7
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses a pump assembly having most
of the features recited in independent claim 1.3 See Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner finds that Lee lacks flanges extending radially outward from
opposite ends of the exterior surface of the housing connected by a plurality
of bolts to the head flange and the base flange. Final Act. 5. The Examiner
finds that Bartman teaches a pipe joint wherein a flanged head and base are
attached to opposite ends of a housing having an upstream flange and a

2 The Examiner relies on Pettigrew, but, despite the fact that Pettigrew is
published in the English language, indicates that Pettigrew ’427 “is being
used as a Translation.” Final Act. 9, 13, 14.
3 The Examiner relies on McCutchen only as evidence that spiral vanes, such
as spiral vanes 312 of Lee’s revolver 31, perform centrifugal action. Final
Act. 3–4 (citing McCutchen ¶ 157).
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

5
downstream flange at its ends. Final Act. 5 (citing Bartman ¶¶ 25, 26, 44).
The Examiner explains that Bartman teaches, in paragraph 44, “that the
flanges have ‘corresponding and compl[e]mentary threads’ that allow them
to be ‘screwed into place’” and that these threads “may be alternatively or in
addition to the fasteners 130” (i.e., the bolts described in paragraphs 25 and
26). Final Act. 5. The Examiner also notes “that the upstream flange and
downstream flange (118) extend[] radially outward from opposite ends of
the cylindrical exterior surface of the housing (110) as depicted” in Bartman.
Final Act. 5.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Lee’s
housing “to incorporate radially extending flanges at both ends, and to
incorporate holes for bolts in these flanges as taught by Bartman and secure
the base flange and head flange via said bolts for the purpose of preventing
rotation of the head and base relative to the housing.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s interpretation of the
upstream and downstream end faces of Lee’s stator 40 as flanges. Appeal
Br. 9; see Final Act. 3 (providing an annotated Figure 1 of Lee showing the
flanges of the housing). Although this argument may have some merit, it
does not apprise us of error in the rejection. To the extent that the
Examiner’s position that the end faces of Lee’s stator 40 constitute flanges
may be unreasonable, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Lee to
incorporate flanges extending radially outwardly from the housing cures this
defect in Lee.
Appellant also argues that there are no flanges on Lee’s pipe 10 that
could be secured with bolts to flanges 26 and that Lee provides no
discussion “of any connection between the pipe (10) and the stator (40).”
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

6
Appeal Br. 8, 10. These arguments are unavailing because neither a
connection of pipe 10 to flange 26 nor a direct connection between pipe 10
and stator 40 (the two components on which the Examiner reads the
“housing”) is required to satisfy claim 1. Notably, claim 1 does not require
that the “housing” consist of a unitary (i.e., one-piece) structure or be formed
of an integral structure (elements connected directly to one another). Claim
1 recites a pump head and a pump base each secured to the pump housing
with redundant connections including an internal threaded connection and an
external flanged connection. Lee, modified as proposed by the Examiner in
view of Bartman, includes connecting bases 20 connected to pipe 10 of the
housing via a threaded connection and connected to stator 40 of the housing
via an external flanged connection. Thus, in the modified device, Lee’s
connecting bases are secured to the pump housing (elements 10 and 40) via
redundant connections including an internal threaded connection and an
external flanged connection, as called for in claim 1.
Appellant contends that Bartman is non-analogous art. Appeal
Br. 13–14. Appellant argues that Bartman is not directed to a pump
assembly and does not teach that the bolted connection and the threaded
connection “could be translated for use as redundant connections between
the head, base[,] and housing of a high pressure pump.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant submits that Bartman’s fasteners 130 and compression rings 150
are used to force seal 120 into seal opening 190 to form a seal between pipe
420, flange 118, and sleeve 113, which, according to Appellant, “is very
different from providing an external flanged [connection between a pump
housing and a pump head to back up an internal threaded connection.”
Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

7
The established precedent of our reviewing court sets up a two-fold
test for determining whether art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from
the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if
the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For the reasons
discussed below, we are satisfied that Bartman qualifies as analogous art at
least under the second prong of the test.
A problem addressed by Appellant is that the threaded connections
between the pump housing and the head and base (i.e., pipe couplings) may
fail as the pressure of a fluid within the housing increases. See Spec. ¶¶ 4–5.
Thus, Appellant provides redundant connections, namely, both a threaded
connection and an external flanged connection, between the housing and the
head and base to reduce the risk of failure between the housing and the head
and base. Spec. ¶ 6.
Bartman is similarly concerned about the integrity of pipe couplings.
See Bartman ¶¶ 1–3. Thus, Bartman seeks to provide an improved pipe
coupling assembly. Bartman ¶ 4. Bartman teaches providing a flanged
connection wherein fasteners 130 (i.e., bolts) pass through bolt holes in the
flanges to secure the elements (flanges of compression rings 150 and flanges
118 of sleeve 113) of the coupling, and also teaches that corresponding and
complementary threads may be provided on compression rings 150 and
sleeve 118 “alternatively or in addition to the fasteners 130” provided to
secure the coupling. Bartman ¶¶ 25, 26, 39, 44. Although Bartman does not
explicitly use the term “redundant” to characterize the embodiment in which
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

8
the complementary threads are provided on compression rings 150 and
sleeve 118 in addition to the flanged connection using bolts, persons having
ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing two independent
means of securing the compression rings to the sleeve creates a redundancy,
which is advantageous in the event that one of these means fails.
Thus, although Bartman may not be specifically intended for use in
connecting a high pressure pump housing to a head and a base, Bartman’s
teachings are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
Appellant was involved, namely, how to improve the integrity of a pipe
coupling. Accordingly, Bartman is analogous art.
We appreciate that Bartman’s coupling arrangement also includes a
seal. However, this additional feature in Bartman does not make Bartman’s
teachings any less pertinent to the particular problem of how to improve the
integrity of a pipe coupling.
Appellant argues that, even if a flange were appended to the outside of
Lee’s stator 40, flange 26 would be too small to be connected to such a
flange. Appeal Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive because, as the
Examiner points out, Bartman teaches providing flanges on both of the
connecting components (i.e. both flange 118 of sleeve 113 and outer rim
portion 160 of compression rings 150), which, according to the Examiner,
suggests that Lee’s flange 26 should be radially extended to the extent of the
additional flange of stator 40 of the housing in order to accommodate the
corresponding bolt holes for passage of the fastening bolts of the flanged
connection. Ans. 27.
Appellant argues that Lee’s stator 40 is disposed around the exterior
of pipe 10 and, thus, would interfere with adding flanges to pipe 10. Appeal
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

9
Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner does not
propose adding a flange on the outside of Lee’s pipe 10; rather, the
Examiner proposes adding a radially outwardly extending flange on the
outside of Lee’s stator 40. Ans. 28.
Appellant also argues that “there is no basis for seeking to prevent
‘rotation of the head and base relative to the housing’ as proposed in the
Final Office Action” because “revolver (31) does not rely on the use of
diffusers that must be held in a stationary position within the housing
through the application of compressive force exerted between the head and
base.” Appeal Br. 16. This argument is not persuasive because any
rotational forces exerted on connecting bases 20 could potentially loosen the
threaded connection between connecting bases 20 and pipe 10. Thus,
providing a flanged connection between connecting bases 20 and stator 40,
in addition to the internal threaded connection between connecting bases 20
and pipe 10, to create a redundancy to prevent any such rotation and
maintain the integrity of the connection, would have been obvious,
especially in view of the fact that such redundant connections of pipe
couplings are well known, as evidenced by Bartman.
Merely by way of example, the Examiner raises the possibility that
vibrations could be transmitted through shaft base 23 to the head or base
(connecting bases 20), and notes that Lee does not disclose any vibration
dampening structure. Ans. 29. Appellant contends that the Examiner is
engaging in conjecture in raising this possibility. Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant
does not persuade us that the Examiner’s articulated reason for making the
modification lacks rational underpinnings. Lee discloses that ends of shaft
311 of revolver 31 are embedded in shaft bases 23 of connecting bases 20,
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

10
and that current flowing through coil 42 of stator 40 excites magnetic
element 32, thereby driving rotor 30 to rotate with respect to stator 40. Lee
¶¶ 19–20. In light of this disclosure, the Examiner’s determination that
vibrations can be transmitted though shaft bases 23 to the head and base
(connecting bases 20) hardly seems far-fetched. The mere possibility that
rotational forces or vibrations might conceivably be translated from rotating
shaft 311 through shaft bases 23 to connecting bases 20, even without
certainty that this will occur, is sufficient incentive to provide redundancy.
Having considered all of Appellant’s arguments on pages 6–17 of the
Appeal Brief and pages 2–8 of the Reply Brief, we are not apprised of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4, and 5, for which
Appellant does not present any separate arguments, as unpatentable over
Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of Bartman.
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by
McCutchen, in view of Bartman and Woods, or the rejections of claim 7 as
unpatentable over Lee, as extrinsically evidenced by McCutchen, in view of
Bartman and either AAPA or Erickson. Accordingly, we sustain these
rejections as well.
Obviousness—Claims 15–21
In rejecting independent claim 15, the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning in modifying Lee in view of the teachings of Bartman are similar
to those discussed above in addressing claim 1. See Final Act. 15–17.
Unlike independent claim 1, independent claim 15 recites an electric motor,
a support frame, and a pump assembly as discrete elements of a surface
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

11
pumping assembly. Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.). The Examiner reads the
electric motor on Lee’s stator 40 and magnet 32, including cylinder 321 and
poles 322. Final Act. 15. The Examiner reads the support frame on Lee’s
support arms 24, which support rotor 30 via shaft base 23 in which ends of
shaft 311 of revolver 31 of rotor 30 are embedded. Final Act. 15. The
Examiner then reads the claimed pump assembly on Lee’s revolver 31
(including spiral vanes 312), pipe 10 and silicon steel rings 41 of stator 40
(as the pump housing), and connecting bases 20 (as the pump head and
pump base). Appeal Br. 15–16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly relies on a single
component of Lee to satisfy multiple elements distinctly set forth in claim
15. Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner relies in part on Lee’s stator to satisfy the
electric motor limitation, and then relies in part on the stator again (i.e.,
silicon steel rings 41 thereof) to satisfy the pump housing limitation.
Further, the Examiner relies on part of connecting bases 20, namely, support
arms 24, as the support frame, and then relies on connecting bases 20 again
as the pump head and pump base of the pump assembly. Final Act. 15–16.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument by stating that “[t]he
[E]xaminer has clearly cited three elements in Lee, not just a single
component as alleged: motor is (40, 32), support frame is (24), pump
assembly is (312, 31).” Ans. 37. Although the Examiner identifies different
reference numbers from Lee for each of the recited claim elements, this
response is misleading and insufficient. First, the Examiner does not rely
solely on elements 312 and 31 of Lee for the pump assembly. Claim 15
recites that the pump assembly comprises a pump housing, a pump base, and
a pump head. Appeal Br. 38–39 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

12
on elements 312 and 31 for these claimed portions of the pump assembly.
Rather, as noted above, the Examiner additionally relies on parts of stator 40
(i.e., silicon steel rings 41) for the pump housing and on connecting bases 20
for the pump base and pump head of the pump assembly. It is improper for
the Examiner to read the claimed electric motor in part on Lee’s stator 40,
and then rely on the silicon steel rings 41 of Lee’s stator as part of the pump
assembly, which claim 15 recites as an element separate and distinct from
the electric motor. Similarly, it is improper for the Examiner to read the
claimed support frame on part (i.e., arms 24) of Lee’s connecting bases 20,
and then rely on connecting bases 20 of Lee as part of the pump assembly,
which claim 15 recites as an element separate and distinct from the support
frame.
For the above reasons, Appellant’s argument apprises us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 15, or of its dependent claims 17–20, as unpatentable over
Lee in view of Bartman.
The Examiner’s application of LaRose and Elliott in rejecting claims
16 and 21, which depend from claim 15, does not overcome the
aforementioned deficiency in the rejection of claim 15. See Final
Act. 17–19. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Bartman and LaRose, or the rejection of
claim 21 as unpatentable over Lee in view of Bartman and Elliott.
Obviousness—Claims 8, 10, and 12–14
In rejecting independent claim 8, the Examiner reads the claimed
housing of each of the pump modules on elements 12, 16, and 19 of
Pettigrew. Final Act. 10. Appellant takes issue with this position because
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

13
Pettigrew “separately refers to the head (19), base (12)[,] and housing (16)”
and because Pettigrew’s head 19, base 12, and housing 16 “are distinct
components that are connected by threaded connections.” Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant submits that Pettigrew fails to satisfy claim 8 because, “[a]lthough
the head (19) and base (12) each include flanges for connection to an
adjacent component, there are no external flanges on the housing (16) and
the head and base (12, 19) are not ‘enclosed’ within the housing (16).”
Appeal Br. 20.
We discern no error in the Examiner considering Pettigrew’s pump
base 12, pump head 19, and pump housing 16 together to comprise a
“housing” as recited in claim 8. Claim 8 does not specify that the housing is
a unitary or one-piece structure, and Appellant does not point us to any
definition of “housing,” either clearly established in the art or set forth in
Appellant’s Specification, as requiring a unitary, i.e., one-piece, structure.
To the contrary, Appellant’s claim 8 refers to “the head and the base of the
[first or second] pump housing . . . wherein the head and base of the [first or
second] pump module are connected within the [first or second] housing
with an internal threaded connection.” Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.). In
other words, Appellant’s claim 8 recites multiple components that are
connected to one another by a threaded connection to be part of the
“housing.” Thus, the Examiner’s position reading the claimed “housing” on
Pettigrew’s pump base 12, pump head 19, and pump housing 16 is consistent
with the language of claim 8.
Further, the fact that Pettigrew labels “pump base 12” and “pump
head 19” (which include the flanges used to connect one or more multi-stage
pumps together) separately from “housing 16” does not undermine the
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

14
Examiner’s interpretation of Pettigrew because there is no requirement that
the prior art reference use the same nomenclature as Appellant’s claims in
order to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation. See In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U. S. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Moreover, the Examiner also takes the alternative position that, even
if Pettigrew’s pump base 12, pump head 19, and pump housing 16 together
cannot reasonably be considered to be a “housing” as recited in claim 8, it
would have been obvious to modify Pettigrew “to form the flange pieces
[(pump base 12 and pump head 19)] of Pettigrew integrally with the housing
as taught by Sneddon because . . . forming in one piece an article formed in
two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.” Final
Act. 10–11 (citing Sneddon, Fig. 15; col. 6, l. 20).
Appellant argues that Pettigrew relies on the threaded engagement
between pump housing 16 and pump base 12 to provide access for diffusers
14 and impellers 13, which would not fit through the narrower throat of
Pettigrew’s head 19 and base 12. Appeal Br. 22. Thus, Appellant argues
that forming Pettigrew’s head 19, base 12, and housing 16 as a single,
unitary structure would not have been obvious. Appeal Br. 22. This
argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner points out, Sneddon illustrates
that if the flange and the remainder of the housing are made of a one-piece
construction, the impellers (i.e., the working parts of the pump) can still be
installed by simply making the throat of the housing wider. Ans. 32 (citing
Sneddon, Fig. 15). Appellant does not persuasively refute this reasoning.
In reading the claimed “housing” on the combined structure of
Pettigrew’s pump base 12, pump housing 16, and pump head 19, the
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

15
Examiner finds that “Pettigrew does not disclose that the head/base is
separate and being connected with a threaded connection in the first and
second pump modules.” Final Act. 11. This finding is ostensibly premised
on an interpretation of claim 8 as reciting the head and base as elements that
are distinct from the housing. We do not construe claim 8 in this manner.
Nothing in claim 8 characterizes the head and base as being distinct from the
housing. To the contrary, as discussed above, claim 8 refers to “the head
and the base of the [first or second] pump housing.” Appeal Br. 37 (Claims
App.). Thus, claim 8 recites the head and base as being part of the housing.
Further, for each of the first and second pump modules, claim 8 recites a
head and a base each “enclosed within the [first or second] housing,” and
“connected within the [first or second] housing with an internal threaded
connection.” Appeal Br. 36–37 (Claims App.). Both of these limitations are
consistent with an interpretation that the head and base are part of the
housing.
Consistent with an interpretation of claim 8 as providing for the head
and base being part of the housing, Pettigrew’s pump base 12 and pump
head 19 appear to satisfy the requirements of claim 8 with respect to the base
and head being enclosed within the housing, and connected within the
housing with an internal threaded connection, even without any modification
in view of either Sneddon or Walker. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that
Walker teaches an enclosed threaded connection (fitting 34) between a
head/base element (extension 33) and a flanged housing (annular flange 31).
Final Act. 11 (citing Walker, Fig. 10). The Examiner further finds that
Walker teaches such an arrangement as an alternative to an embodiment
shown in Figure 9 of Walker in which the head/base element (29) is cast
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

16
integrally with the flanged housing. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious “to form the head or base of
Pettigrew as a separate element being connected with a threaded connection
to the flanged housings of both the first and second pump modules as taught
by Walker because” constructing a formerly integral structure as multiple
elements, or forming in one piece an article formerly formed in multiple
pieces and assembled together “involves only routine skill in the art.” Final
Act. 12. The Examiner explains that, “[i]n the modified apparatus, since the
head/base modification is being made at the ends of the first/second
housings where the flanges are, the plurality of centrifugal pump stages (13)
of Pettigrew would be in between the head and the base (33) of the Walker
modification.” Final Act. 12. The Examiner provides annotated versions of
Pettigrew’s Figure 2 on pages 10 and 12 of the Final Action to show where
the threaded connections would be incorporated in Pettigrew.
Appellant submits that the combination of Pettigrew with Walker is
premised on an improper interpretation of Pettigrew as lacking a head and
base connected to the housing with a threaded connection. Appeal Br. 23.
According to Appellant, because Pettigrew actually discloses head 19 and
base 12 connected to housing 16 with a threaded connection, there is no
basis for combining Walker with Pettigrew. Appeal Br. 23.
The Examiner responds by emphasizing that head 19 and base 12 of
Pettigrew are part of a single pump module and that the modules themselves
are connected to one another via end flanges on the modules. Ans. 33. It is
the structure between the flanges connecting the modules that is the subject
of the modification, not the threaded connection between head 19, base 12,
and housing 16 of Pettigrew’s module. Ans. 33. The Examiner explains
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

17
that, because “Pettigrew does not provide details of the connection between
the flanges, the Walker reference is relevant because it teaches the
connection between adjacent flanged housings (31) in order to connect the
adjacent flanged housings.” Ans. 33–34. In this regard, Pettigrew depicts a
discrete extension component, to the left of seal 11, in Figure 2, that is
somehow connected to base 12, but Pettigrew does not specify the details of
this connection. Thus, the Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to look to the teachings of
Walker for such details. See Ans. 33–34. Pettigrew depicts head 19, on the
right, being a one-piece component. Pettigrew, Fig. 2. As already noted
above, Walker teaches two alternatives for providing such an extension, the
first being an extension integrally cast on the body, as illustrated in Figure 9,
and the second being a threaded extension, as illustrated in Figure 10. Thus,
the combined teachings of Pettigrew and Walker seem to support the
Examiner’s reasoning that either an integrally formed head/base structure or
a head/base structure comprising a threaded extension would have been
obvious as a matter of routine skill in the art.
Appellant argues that Walker is not analogous art. Appeal Br. 23–24.
In particular, Appellant argues that Walker is directed to a pipe joint, and not
to a high pressure multistage centrifugal pump, and thus is not from the
same field of endeavor as Appellant’s invention. Appeal Br. 23–24.
Appellant contends that Walker also is not reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced by Appellant because Walker is “not related to the redundant
base and head connections within Appellant’s pump housing.” Appeal
Br. 24.
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

18
The Examiner determines that Walker is analogous art because it is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the present
application. Final Act. 22–23. In particular, the Examiner states that “at
least one of the problems [Appellant] is trying to solve is the deficiency of
the prior art connections at high pressures,” and “Walker clearly provides a
solution because the joints are suitable for high pressures.” Final Act. 22–23
(citing Spec. ¶ 5; Walker, col. 1, ll. 1–4). The Examiner also finds that “the
referenced flange/housing couplings of Pettigrew and Walker are similar
structures” and, thus, pass the field of endeavor test— the first prong of the
analogous art test. Ans. 34; see In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348.
The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325–27 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Walker teaches “constructions for joining pipes
carrying fluids at high temperatures and pressures.” Walker, p. 1, ll. 2–4.
Similarly, Appellant’s invention “relates generally to the field of industrial
pumping systems, and more particularly to pump systems used in high-
pressure applications.” Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s Specification is concerned
with providing a pipe connection between the housing and the head and base
“that provides for increased resistance to failure at elevated working
pressures.” Spec. ¶ 5. Thus, the function of Walker’s device is similar to
that of Appellant’s invention. Further, Walker’s construction, as illustrated
in Figure 10, is similar in structure to Appellant’s construction, as illustrated
in Figures 4–6, in that both employ an external flange connection as well as
an extension, such as a head or base, connected within the flanged pipe
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

19
structure (or flanged pump housing) with an internal threaded connection.
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s determination that
Walker satisfies the “field of endeavor” test and, thus, is analogous art.
Moreover, even if Walker is not considered to be within Appellant’s
field of endeavor, Walker is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
addressed by the inventors of the present application, namely, how to
improve the integrity of pipe joints for joining pipes carrying fluids at high
pressures. See Walker, p. 1, ll. 1–4; Spec. ¶¶ 4–5. Thus, the Examiner also
is correct that Walker is also analogous art under the second prong of the
analogous art test.
Appellant argues that Walker relies on an internal weld that would
prevent the removal of the threaded connection, thereby preventing the
successful combination of Walker with Pettigrew, “because it would be
impossible to disengage the head and base from the housing to service the
internal components of the pump.” Appeal Br. 25. According to Appellant,
the proposed combination would render Pettigrew’s pump “unusable and
would defeat one of the princip[al] objects of Appellant’s invention” (a
redundant connection of the head and base to the pump housing). Appeal
Br. 25. This argument is not persuasive. Even assuming the weld taught by
Walker were used to connect Pettigrew’s pumps, one could still access the
interior of the pump by disengaging the external flanged connection and the
internal threaded connection of the extension to the base/head 12 or 19.
Further, as the Examiner points out, one could access the interior of the
pump by unthreading base 12 and/or head 19 from housing 16. Ans. 35.
Having considered all of Appellant’s arguments on pages 17–27 of
Appellant’s Appeal Brief and pages 8–11 of the Reply Brief, we are not
Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

20
apprised of error in the rejection of independent claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, and of
claims 13 and 14, for which Appellant does not present any separate
arguments, as unpatentable over Pettigrew in view of Sneddon and Walker.
Appellant does not present any arguments specifically contesting the
rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Pettigrew in view of Sneddon,
Walker, and Erickson, or the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over
Pettigrew in view of Sneddon, Walker, and Woods. Accordingly, we sustain
these rejections as well.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, and 12–14 are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 15–21 are REVERSED.

Appeal 2020-001196
Application 14/054,398

21
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5 103 Lee, McCutchen,
Bartman
1, 2, 4, 5
3 103 Lee, McCutchen,
Bartman, Woods
3
7 103 Lee, McCutchen,
Bartman, AAPA
7
7 103 Lee, McCutchen,
Bartman, Erickson
7
15, 17–20 103 Lee, Bartman 15, 17–20
16 103 Lee,
Bartman, LaRose
16
21 103 Lee, Bartman,
Elliott
21
8, 13, 14 103 Pettigrew,
Sneddon, Walker
8, 13, 14
10 103 Pettigrew,
Sneddon, Walker,
Erickson
10
12 103 Pettigrew,
Sneddon, Walker,
Woods
12
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7, 8,
10, 12–14
15–21

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