Appeal No. 2005-0118
Application 10/094,413
engaging arms. To account for the above-noted differences, the
examiner looks to the pipe spinner mechanism of the Hudson
patent, which the examiner characterizes as disclosing “two
pivoted engaging arms, two drive systems, and two compressed air
rams” (answer, page 3) to enable engagement and rotation of
threaded pipe segments in a well drilling operation.1 From the
combined disclosures and teachings of Rauch and Hudson, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
form the device of Rauch with two pivoted engaging arms, two
drive systems, and two compressed air rams to enable engagement
and rotation of threaded pipe segments in a rapid, efficient
manner as taught by Hudson.
Appellant argues, and we strongly agree, that the examiner’s
attempted combination of the pipe spinning tools of Rauch and
Hudson, and the wholesale structural changes to the motorized
wrench of Rauch resulting therefrom, represents an improper
1 Unlike the examiner, we find no “compressed air rams”
disclosed in the pipe spinner of Hudson. The elements (52)
disclosed as moving the pivoted arms (38) therein are
specifically said to be “hydraulic cylinders” (col. 3, lines
25-33).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007