Sommerfeld, Kyle A. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 17, 2020

15207326 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 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.
15/207,326 07/11/2016 Kyle A. Sommerfeld SUR-032134 US CONT 5393
100679 7590 01/17/2020
Eubanks PLLC (Cameron International Corporation)
12777 Jones Road
Suite 465
Houston, TX 77070
EXAMINER
GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2020 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 KYLE A. SOMMERFELD,
HAO BIN HUANG, and JAY P. PAINTER

Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, and 21–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 “Cameron
International Corporation (the assignee of record for this application) and
Schlumberger Limited.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “generally relate[s] to locking assemblies
and sealing packoffs that can be installed within a bore of a wellhead.”
Spec. ¶ 5. System claims 1 and 21, and method claim 26, are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a wellhead component having a bore;
an inner component disposed within the bore of the
wellhead component;
a locking assembly disposed within the bore between the
inner component and the wellhead component to secure the inner
component within the bore of the wellhead component, the
locking assembly including:
a lock ring that extends into a recess in a wall of the
bore of the wellhead component; and
an actuator radially disposed between the inner
component and the lock ring to retain the lock ring within the
recess;
wherein the actuator has an interference fit with the
inner component to inhibit movement of the actuator between the
lock ring and the inner component; and
a packoff disposed in the bore of the wellhead component,
the packoff including:
an inner annular seal; and
an outer annular seal.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Berner, Jr. et al. (“Berner”) US 4,561,499 Dec. 31, 1985
Koleilat et al. (“Koleilat”) US 6,510,895 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
Nelson US 2010/0147533 A1 June 17, 2010
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–8, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, and 24–29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Berner.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Berner
and Koleilat.
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Berner and Nelson.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of 1, 4–8, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, and 24–29
as anticipated by Berner
Appellant argues system claims 1, 4–8, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, and 25
together. See Appeal Br. 4–11. Appellant also argues method claims 26–29
together, but relies on the same arguments presented with respect to the
above system claims. See Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we select claim 1
for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 4–8, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22,
and 24–29) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 is directed to a locking assembly, including an actuator and a
lock ring, disposed within a wellhead between a wellhead component and an
inner component, “wherein the actuator has an interference fit with the inner
component to inhibit movement of the actuator between the lock ring and
the inner component.” See Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appellant’s
Specification does not define “interference fit,” stating only that “[f]riction
caused by the interference fit at the interface 66 between these two
components [i.e., between actuator 56 and hanger 48, i.e., inner component,]
retains the actuator 56 in its locked position.” Spec. ¶ 28. The Examiner
states (which Appellant does not dispute), “[a]n interference fit is defined as
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

4
‘a match between the size and shape of two parts, such that force is required
for assembly as one part is slightly larger than the other’ by
Dictionary.com.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner correlates Berner’s item 112/118 to the recited
“actuator,” Berner’s item 72 to the recited “inner component,” and Berner’s
item 66 to the recited “lock ring.” Final Act. 5–6. For a better
understanding, Appellant’s Figure 3 and Berner’s Figure 2B are reproduced
below.

Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

5
Appellant’s Figure 3 (left) and Berner’s Figure 2B (right) are both cross-
sectional views depicting the above identified components.
The Examiner specifically references Berner’s teaching that “section
112 includes an inwardly tapering actuating sleeve 118” and that this taper is
“to provide for a positive locking engagement against locking/loading dogs
66 when the dogs are urged by the downwardly forced actuating sleeve
118.” Final Act. 6, Ans. 5 (both referencing Berner 6:37–49). Thus,
according to the Examiner, because Berner’s “[s]leeve 118 is forced down
between the locking dogs 66 and inner component 72 . . . This is by
definition an interference fit.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant disagrees, stating that the passage in Berner relied upon
“does not even address the inner surface of the sleeve 118 facing the tubing
hanger body 72, let alone expressly state that the sleeve 118 has an
interference fit with the tubing hanger body 72.” Appeal Br. 7 (also
replicating Figure 2B of Berner); see also Reply Br. 2–3. Instead, “[t]he
Berner et al. reference does not appear to disclose dimensions or
manufacturing tolerances of these components and gives no indication of the
type of fit between the sleeve 118 and the tubing hanger body 72.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant acknowledges that in Berner, “the sleeve 118 is pushed
down to drive the locking dogs 66 outward,” however, as per Appellant,
“nothing about FIG. 2B can be reasonably characterized as expressly
disclosing an interference fit between the sleeve 118 and the tubing hanger
body 72.”2 Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s focus on the apparent wedging of Berner’s actuator 112/118

2 In view of the teachings of Berner, the Examiner stated, “[a] statement of
inherency was not needed.” Ans. 7.
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

6
between inner component 72 and dogs 66 “is false” and that, instead, it is
“segmented nut 152 and wicker threads 106” that “cooperate to lock the
outer sleeve (including the actuating sleeve 118) in place to keep the dogs 66
in their extended, locked position in groove 70.” Appeal Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 3–4.
The citations to Berner relied upon by Appellant in asserting the role
that segmented nut 152 and wicker threads 106 have in keeping dogs 66 in
place (see Appeal Br. 9) is correct up to a point. Such nut/threads indeed aid
in precluding upward (or release) movement of Berner’s actuator 112/118
(see, e.g., Berner 8:13–25, Fig. 2C).3 However, the question is whether
Berner discloses an “interference fit” consistent with the Examiner’s
uncontested construction above. See Ans. 6. We are of the opinion that the
Examiner has the better position on this point. Although Berner’s text may
not directly address the interface between actuator 112/118 and inner
component 72, Berner’s Figure 2B provides further teaching on this point.
At the same time, Berner’s text discusses the taper of sleeve 118 being
“downwardly forced” against dogs 66 at contact surface 120 (opposite the
actuator/inner component interface). See Berner 6:37–49.
We have been instructed by our reviewing court that a “[d]escription
for purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”
In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). We have further been
instructed that drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose
and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d

3 The Examiner states, “[t]he Examiner assertion was not an indication that
there are not other elements in the overall system that hold components in
place nor is this a requirement by the claims.” Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

7
911, 914 (CCPA 1979). In other words, our reviewing court has provided
guidance stating “we did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly
are to be disregarded.” Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072.
The Figures and text of Berner clearly teach a forced insertion of a
tapered actuator into a smaller space. Accordingly, and more specifically,
we understand from Berner that tapered actuator sleeve 118 is downwardly
forced (i.e., wedged) into a smaller area between outer dogs 66 and inner
component 72. This operation coincides with the definition of “interference
fit” above. The Examiner further notes a similar operation occurring in
Appellant’s device. See Ans. 6 (comparing “Figure 5 of the instant
application and Figure 2B of Berner”). Because of such similarity, the
Examiner reasons that “if the interface 66 of the instant application is an
interference fit between the actuator 56 and the inner component 48 then it
stands to reason that [a skilled artisan would reasonably understand that] the
interface between the actuator 112/118 of Berner et al. and the inner
component 72 must also be an interference fit.” Ans. 7.
In summation, and based on the record presented as well as guidance
from our reviewing court, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
instead conclude that the Examiner has established that Berner anticipates
claim 1. We, thus, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 11, 13,
14, 21, 22, and 24–29 as being anticipated by Berner.
The rejection of claim 3
as unpatentable over Berner and Koleilat
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented above contending
that “the Koleilat et al. reference does not cure this error.” Appeal Br. 11.
However, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s reliance on Berner
Appeal 2019-004155
Application 15/207,326

8
above was in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3.
The rejection of claims 12 and 23
as unpatentable over Berner and Nelson
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented above contending
that “the Nelson reference does not cure this error.” Appeal Br. 12.
However, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s reliance on Berner
above was in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12 and 23.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8, 11,
13, 14, 21,
22, 24–29
102(a)(1) Berner 1, 4–8, 11,
13, 14, 21,
22, 24–29

3 103 Berner, Koleilat 3
12, 23 103 Berner, Nelson 12, 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8, 11–
14, 21–29

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED