Application of Mott
| Citation | 557 F.2d 266 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 77-510. |
| Parties | Application of James D. MOTT. |
| Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
John H. Dodge, II, Charles W. Hanor, Houston, Tex. (Pravel, Wilson & Gambrell, Houston, Tex.), attorneys of record, for appellant.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents; John W. Dewhirst, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Associate Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claims 28-30 of appellant's application serial No. 212,260, filed December 27, 1971, for "Drilling Tool." We reverse.1
The invention is described as an "inside blowout preventer tool." It is used in drilling oil wells, is adapted for connection in a drill string, and has a flow passage through which drilling fluid circulates to a drill bit. Mounted in the bore is a full-opening, ball-type closure designed to automatically rotate closed when incipient well pressure conditions occur which would reverse the flow through the bore, due to down-hole pressure buildup. The details of the complete structure are complex and need not be here described. One needs only to know that the ball-type valve element in its closed position bears against a seat or seal and that it is desired, in rotating the ball to open position, that the ball not be turned against the seat while under fluid pressure because this would tend to wear out the valve in the presence of abrasive materials which occur in the drilling fluid. Appellant has devised a structure in which the fluid pressure on the ball valve is relieved by axial movement of the ball in the bore, relative to its seat, prior to its rotation, whereby wear on the ball and its seat is minimized because the pressure on opposite sides of the ball is equalized by spacing the ball from its seat before it is rotated.
The claims are set forth below and the critical element is that recited in the last clause of claim 28, which has been emphasized.
The references relied on are:
Leutwyler 3,741,249 June 26, 1973
Brown 3,200,837 Aug. 17, 1965
Leutwyler is the principal reference. The examiner rejected claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as fully met or "anticipated" by this patent. Claim 30, which, as can be seen, merely adds to claim 28 means for locking the bore closure means (ball) in the open position, was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing the Brown patent. In his Answer, the examiner thus summed up his rejection of claim 30:
* * * claim 30 simply adds to claim 28 a means for releasably locking the bore closure means in open position. This type of means is clearly disclosed in Brown and to simply adapt the teaching of Brown to Leutwyler would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Emphasis ours.
Reproduced below, to facilitate further discussion, is the lower portion of Fig. 1 of Leutwyler showing in a general way the location of his ball valve mechanism in a producing well, to control the flow of fluid therefrom.
The drawing shows an automatic shutoff valve assembly V installed in a string of well production tubing T which extends downwardly through a well casing C set in a well bore W. A packer 10 is set in the casing C, forming a seal between tubing T and the casing below valve V which is adapted to remain open so long as it is supplied with suitable control fluid pressure through control fluid tubing CF extending down through the casing from a control point at the top of the well.
A single central issue has been developed by the opposing contentions of appellant and the PTO. It is whether the "means" defined in the final clause of claim 28 is found in Leutwyler, there being no dispute about the fact that the reference does disclose the other elements of the claim. The issue may be sharpened even further by appellant's concession that appellant and Leutwyler...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BWB Controls, Inc. v. US Industries, Inc.
...Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 32, 82 L.Ed.2d 923 (1984); Application of Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269 (C.C.P.A.1977). 7. 35 U.S.C. § 103 A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth i......
-
Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp.
...does not meet the claim.'" RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269 (CCPA 1977)). The element disclosed in the prior art must be identical to or the structural equivalent of the element disclosed in the patent......
-
Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.
...E. g., permits structure for a rotational or downward direction for cap removal), as urged by petitioner. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 194 U.S.P.Q. 305 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In view of the foregoing, it is That the petition is granted to the extent that the court has considered petitioner's arg......
-
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems v. Scimed Life
...does not meet the claim." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269 (1977)). Although the claim language requires only "means for performing a vascular procedure," Sirhan Patent at 8:29, the specification provi......