Ex Parte Lavalley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814555945 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/555,945 11/28/2014 Jason LAV ALLEY 52835 7590 06/04/2018 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683 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. 20300.00lOUSCl 8894 EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): PTOMail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON LAV ALLEY, DANIEL L. LARSON, ROGER LAV ALLEY, MARVIN N. LARSON, RODNEY WURGLER, CHRISTOPHER G. KAY, MATTHEW J. MICHEL, and JESSE J. KILDE Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 12-15, 20, 21, 25, and 26. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Claims 9, 12-17, and 20-27 were rejected in the Non-Final Action dated June 10, 2016, from which this appeal is taken. Of those claims, claims 22, 24, and 27 are canceled and the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 23 is withdrawn, with the claims being indicated as allowable over the prior art. Ans. 2. Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention relates to a pipe handling attachment that is attachable to a prime mover, for use in making up or breaking out pipes during assembly or disassembly of the pipes. Spec. 1, 11. 6-9. Claims 9 and 20 are independent. Claim 9 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 9. A method of pipe make up and pipe break out, comprising: attaching a pipe handling attachment to a first end of an arm of a prime mover, a second end of the arm is attached to the pnme mover; using the pipe handling attachment to make up a first pipe and a second pipe and to break out a first pipe and a second pipe, the first pipe and the second pipe having ends that are threaded for threaded connection to one another; during pipe make up, using the pipe handling attachment to thread the end of the second pipe onto the end of the first pipe, followed by applying final torque to a predetermined torque value using the pipe handling attachment to complete the pipe make up; during pipe break out, using the pipe handling attachment to apply a torque to break the joint between the end of the first pipe and the end of the second pipe, followed by unthreading the end of the second pipe from the end of the first pipe using the pipe handling attachment; prior to pipe make up, using the pipe handling attachment to pick up the second pipe from a location that is separate from the prime mover and to position the end of the second pipe relative to the end of the first pipe to permit threading of the end of the second pipe onto the end of the first pipe; and after pipe break out, using the pipe handling attachment to position the second pipe on a pipe stack that is at a location that is separate from the prime mover or on the ground. 2 Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 THE REJECTI0NS 2 The Examiner has rejected: (i) Claims 9, 14, 20, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Casagrande (US 5,129,764, issued July 14, 1992) in view of Haberer (US 5,018,588, issued May 28, 1991), and Montabert (US 4,364,540, issued Dec. 21, 1982); and (ii) Claims 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Casagrande in view of Haberer, Montabert, and Hauk (US 2004/0069097 Al, published Apr. 15, 2004). ANALYSIS Claims 9, 14, 20, 21, 25, and 26--0bviousness-- Casagrande/Haberer/Montabert The Examiner finds that Casagrande discloses an apparatus comprising a pipe handling attachment ( excavation equipment 14), the pipe handling attachment having a feed device ( device 26) for lifting rods from the ground and feeding the rods to clamping devices for applying a torque to pipe connections. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Casagrande, col. 2, 11. 56-60, col. 3, 11. 1-2). The Examiner acknowledges that Casagrande does not disclose using the pipe handling attachment to spin a first pipe relative to a second pipe, nor to apply a final torque to make up (join) or break out (disconnect) the pipes. Id. The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Casagrande is inherently capable of spinning the pipes and applying a final torque to make up or break out the pipes and takes Official Notice that these 2 A rejection of claims 22, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is moot as these claims are now canceled. 3 Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 steps are old and well-known in the art. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner further finds that Casagrande discloses vices for unscrewing a drilling shaft. Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Haberer as disclosing a drilling device that uses several pipe sections that are sequentially screwed together during drilling and unscrewed from one another during removal of the drill, with the screwing and unscrewing accomplished using clamping jaws. Id. at 5 (citing Haberer, col. 2, 11. 49--51). The Examiner also finds that Montabert discloses a drill for making subterranean holes in order to place explosives inside the holes or to take sample materials from the holes. Id. ( citing Montabert, col. 1, 11. 19--30). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Casagrande with a plurality of pipes, as taught by Haberer, for drilling holes for reinforcement rods and to place explosives inside the holes or take sample materials from the holes, as taught by Montabert. Id. The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to spin and apply a final torque "during make-up and break out of the drill string when using the apparatus of Casagrande for drilling," and to use the feed device 26 of Casagrande to return the pipes to the ground to form a stack of pipes when the pipes are removed. Id. at 5---6. In response to various arguments advanced by Appellants, the Examiner takes the position that, even if the structure of Casagrande were not capable of performing the steps as claimed, the disclosure of Haberer to provide the apparatus with the capability to provide all necessary functions would provide motivation to one of ordinary skill to provide some additional structure to the apparatus of Casagrande to provide the unloading function if needed, wherein the pending method claims do not disclose specific structure to allow the claimed function such that 4 Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 the teaching of Haberer that the apparatus provides all functions would in itself make obvious the functional step of moving the pipe to a different location. Ans. 11. Although claims 9 and 20 are directed to a method of pipe make up and pipe break out, in order to properly reject the claims as having been obvious, the Examiner must establish that an apparatus that is at least capable of carrying out the claimed steps either exists in the applied prior art or would have been obvious in view thereof. However, Casagrande only provides an apparatus having structure for lifting a reinforcement rod from the ground and bringing the reinforcement rod to a required position. Casagrande, col. 3, 11. 15-34. Thus, the apparatus of Casagrande would require substantial modification in order to even be capable of carrying out all of the claimed steps. While the Examiner explains that it would have been obvious to perform all of the claimed steps based on the teachings of the combined references, the Examiner does not explain adequately how the apparatus of Casagrande would be modified such that it is even capable of carrying out those claimed steps. Accordingly, the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9 and 20, and claims 14, 21, 25, and 26, which depend therefrom. Claims 12, 13, and 15--0bviousness-- Casagrande/Haberer/Montabert/Hauk The Examiner does not rely on Hauk in any manner that would remedy the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claim 9, from which claims 12, 13, and 15 depend therefrom, over Casagrande, Haberer, and 5 Appeal2017-008755 Application 14/555,945 Montabert. Non-Final Act. 6-7. For the same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 12, 13, and 15. DECISION The rejections of claims 9, 12-15, 20, 21, 25, and 26 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation