Behrens, Randall Dean.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 201914669754 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/669,754 03/26/2015 Randall Dean Behrens 031872.0217315.008 1970 23444 7590 08/02/2019 ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP 600 TRAVIS, SUITE 4200 HOUSTON, TX 77002 EXAMINER QUAIM, LAMIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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): pat-tmk@andrewskurth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RANDALL DEAN BEHRENS Appeal 2019-001663 Application 14/669,754 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Premier Coil Solutions, Inc., appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Premier Coil Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001663 Application 14/669,754 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to high pressure swivel assemblies for delivering a pumped substance to the coiled tubing reel. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An oilfield assembly comprising a pump in fluid communication with a string of coiled tubing on a tubing reel through a coiled tubing swivel assembly, the coiled tubing swivel assembly comprising: a swivel housing having a central axis; an end cap coupled to one end of the swivel housing; and a rotatable hollow shaft comprising a first end attachable to the tubing reel, a portion that extends axially within the swivel housing between the first end and a second end, wherein the second end engages a groove in the end cap such that an inner diameter portion of the second end is protected from direct contact with the pumped substance as the pumped substance flows in a direction from the pump through the end cap, swivel housing, and rotatable hollow shaft to the tubing reel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Boski Hailey Shampine US 4,199,131 US 4,519,238 US 7,600,564 B2 Apr. 22, 1980 May 28, 1985 Oct. 13, 2009 Ungchusri Verger Pecorari US 2003/0047944 A1 US 2005/0172472 A1 US 2007/0051508 A1 Mar. 13, 2003 Aug. 11, 2005 Mar. 8, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shampine and Verger. Final Act. 3. Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shampine, Verger, Ungchusri, and Pecorari. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2019-001663 Application 14/669,754 3 Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shampine, Verger, and Boski. Final Act. 11. Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shampine, Verger, and Hailey. Final Act. 14. OPINION Shampine and Verger The Examiner rejects all of the claims using some combination of Shampine and Verger. Shampine teaches most of the limitations relating to tubing reel structure, but fails to teach the specific structure of the connector between the reel and an incoming/outgoing pipe. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds a similar structure in Verger and combines it with Shampine, asserting that one of skill in the art would have made the combination “to form a secure seal/prevent leakage when pumping/recovering fluid from hydrocarbon wells.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues, inter alia, against the Examiner’s motivation, stating that “[i]t is the rotary seals (110, 112) that form a secure seal/prevent leakage against a fluctuating non-constant fluid pressure present in the interior chamber of the swivel housing (104a) and/or end cap (104b) during operation” of Appellant’s invention. App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues that Verger has nothing to do with “protect[ing] the distal end of the second end (108) from direct immediate contact with the fluid flowing through the swivel assembly.” Id. We agree. The Examiner’s reasoning for combining the references is not founded on a reasonable basis with rational underpinnings because Shampine already has other structure in place to seal the joint and sealing/leakage is not a problem at the joint in question. Thus, Appeal 2019-001663 Application 14/669,754 4 one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to place a seal in a location where such is not needed in the first place. Because all of the rejections rely on this faulty motivation for combining Shampine and Verger, we do not sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation