Ex Parte Jurena

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13227628 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/227,628 09/08/2011 Johnny Everett Jurena 111078-024300US 5881
102197 7590 12/22/2016
Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams
& Aughtry, P.C.
1200 Smith Street, 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
Patents @ chamberlainlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHNNY EVERETT JURENA
Appeal 2014-009126
Application 13/227,628
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and GORDON D.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—4 and 6—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Cameron International Corporation as the real party in
interest.
Appeal 2014-009126
Application 13/227,628
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a load-sharing ram packer for ram type
blowout preventers. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A ram block, comprising:
an upper ram arm;
a lower ram arm;
a packer channel; and
a packer disposed at least partially within the packer
channel and comprising a skeletal member; and
wherein the skeletal member is configured to couple to the
upper ram arm and the lower ram arm to oppose vertical
separation of the ram arms.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Meynier US 3,817,326 Jun. 18, 1974
Judge US 7,703,739 B2 Apr. 27,2010
Weir US 2010/0243926 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, 6—11, 13—18, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Judge and Weir. Ans. 2—3.
Claims 4, 12, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Judge, Weir, and Meynier. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2014-009126
Application 13/227,628
OPINION
Appellant argues that Judge does not disclose any component that
“oppose[s] vertical separation of parts of the same block.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant further argues that “Weir does not teach any member in either ram
block that opposes vertical separation of upper and lower ram block arms. . .
. Weir fails to teach any function other than sealing by the components
[identified as corresponding to the claimed packer].” Appeal Br. 12.
Finally, Appellant argues “the claims recite that the packer includes the
skeletal member and that both the packer and the skeletal member are in a
packer channel. Judge’s load intensifying members 205 however are not
incorporated in a packer or located in any packer channel.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner answers that Judge discloses a packer (sealing
members 208 and 209) and a packer channel. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds
that the intensifying member 205 of Judge corresponds to the claimed
skeletal member. Id. Although the Examiner never identifies what part of
Judge corresponds to the claimed “packer channel,” he finds that “packer
channel” “include[s] both the seal groove and the cavity in which the
modified skeletal member would be located as seal will flow [sic] into that
cavity when the ram blocks are in a closed condition.” Id. The Examiner
further finds that Judge discloses one ram arm (202, Fig. 4) that comprises a
slot to receive a longitudinal protrusion of the skeletal member (205, Fig. 4)
arranged to oppose vertical separation of the two rams. Id.
To address the fact that Judge does not disclose an upper arm and a
lower arm in the same ram block, the Examiner turns to Weir. The
Examiner finds that Weir teaches “a blowout preventer with ram socketing,”
and “a ram block with an upper and a lower arm and a skeletal member to
3
Appeal 2014-009126
Application 13/227,628
couple the arms for better sealing.” Ans. 2. The Examiner provides a
drawing showing the parts of Weir corresponding to the claimed “upper
arm” and “lower arm.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that:
Weir teaches rams comprising upper and lower arms that
are coupled together with a tongue and groove connection. The
Examiner maintains that adapting the Weir teaching ... to the
load strengthening structure disclosed by Judge et al. would
result in an integral structure that prevents] vertical separation
of the ram blocks thereby resulting in a better seal. The Examiner
further maintains that an integral structure that prevents vertical
separation of the ram blocks would necessarily prevent the
vertical separation of the upper and lower arms.
Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellant that none of the art shows a ram block
having upper and lower arms which are coupled by a packer which includes
a skeletal member configured to oppose vertical separation of the ram arms.
No combination of the features of Judge and Weir results in the structure
claimed by Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 6—11, 13—18, and 21—23.
Appellant argued that dependent claims 4, 12, 19, and 20 are
patentable for the same reasons as the preceding claims and that the
additional reference cited by the Examiner (Meynier) does not cure the
deficiency of the rejection of the claims from which these claims depend.
Because we find the claims from which these claims depend are patentable,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 12, 19, and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—
23 is reversed.
4
Appeal 2014-009126
Application 13/227,628
REVERSED
5