PTAB

IPR2015-00998

Ameriforge Group Inc v. Worldwide Oilfield Machine Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Valve actuator and method
  • Brief Description: The ’897 patent discloses a valve actuator for oilfield applications featuring a compact, concentric design. The invention emphasizes a pre-compressed spring cartridge assembly that can be replaced as a single unit in the field and a manual override assembly secured to the hydraulic cylinder housing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Method Claims over Ma - Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Ma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ma (Patent 6,182,678).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ma, which discloses an apparatus for safely installing and removing spring-loaded failsafe valve actuators, teaches every limitation of method claims 7-9. Ma's open frame (20) with columns (25) was identified as the claimed "hydraulic actuator housing." The method steps were met by engaging a return spring (45) between a first lip member (spring seat 35) and a second lip member (cover plate 50). These members are secured together by bolts (51), which compress the spring. Petitioner contended that this entire pre-compressed spring assembly is then installed "simultaneously into said hydraulic housing as a unit." Finally, Ma explicitly states its actuator (60) may be a "hydraulic cylinder," which necessarily includes a piston, thus meeting the limitation of installing a hydraulic piston without decompressing the spring.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Valve & Method Claims over Ma, Baker, and Young - Claims 8, 11, 12, and 14-18 are obvious over Ma in view of Baker and Young.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ma (Patent 6,182,678), Baker (Patent 5,046,376), and Young (WO 95/23937).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended this combination renders the valve actuator claims obvious. Ma provided the foundational pre-compressed, unitized spring cartridge. Baker taught replacing Ma's simple actuator with a more robust, bi-directionally controllable hydraulic actuator (212) featuring first and second hydraulic ports (236, 238) and an integrated manual override (32). Young taught modifying Ma's open frame into a solid, enclosed actuator housing (228) similar to that shown in the ’897 patent. Petitioner argued the combination of these elements taught all limitations of claim 12, including a cylinder member with a piston, seals to isolate hydraulic fluid, a manual override, and a return spring in a chamber isolated from the piston chamber.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for predictable results. The primary motivation for adding Baker was to incorporate a manual override for improved safety and reliability, allowing manual valve closure if the spring failed or hydraulic pressure was lost. Baker’s bi-directional control also offered faster, more forceful valve actuation. The motivation to adopt Young's enclosed housing was to improve structural rigidity against external pressures (e.g., subsea use), enhance modularity by creating a standard interface for different actuators, and simplify assembly.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination represented a straightforward substitution of one known type of actuator (Baker's) for another (Ma's) and the use of a known superior housing design (Young's), all to achieve their well-understood functions, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Valve Claims over McIntosh - Claims 12 and 14-18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by McIntosh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McIntosh (Patent 6,352,239).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McIntosh, disclosing a "gate valve hydraulic actuator," inherently teaches every element of claims 12 and 14-18. McIntosh's actuator housing (36) was shown attached to the valve, containing a slidable hydraulic piston (28) within a cylinder housing (30) that defines a piston chamber (32). Petitioner identified a plurality of seals, including stem packing (18) and seal (35), that limit fluid movement. McIntosh's design includes a spring chamber that is fluidly isolated from the piston chamber by a plugged channel, and the return spring (42) is located within this isolated chamber. McIntosh also explicitly discloses a manual override mechanism.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 7-9 and 11 are obvious over Ma in view of Young; claims 7-9 and 11 are anticipated by Young alone; claim 13 is obvious over the combination of Ma, Baker, Young, and Hay (Patent 4,777,800); and claims 12-18 are obvious over combinations of Frazer (Patent 4,744,386), Kalsi (Patent 4,489,918), Baker, and Hay.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "installing... as a unit": Petitioner argued this term was central to overcoming prior art during prosecution of the ’897 patent. Based on the patent owner's arguments to the examiner, Petitioner asserted the term requires installing a pre-compressed return spring together with its retaining members (lip members) simultaneously into the hydraulic housing, such that the spring is not further compressed during installation. This construction was key to distinguishing over prior art that installed the spring first and then compressed it within the housing.
  • "manual override assembly for manually operating said hydraulic piston": Petitioner contended this term should be construed as mechanical components within the actuator itself that are operable by hand to move the piston. This construction was based on the ’897 patent’s sole embodiment and the inventor's own statements in the related ’650 patent, which distinguished the prior invention as "mounting an exemplary compact manual override operator onto an actuator" from the ’650 patent's invention where the operator is "positioned on an opposite side of the gate valve." This distinction was central to Petitioner's argument against the Patent Owner's alleged broader litigation position and was the explicit reason for including grounds combining Frazer's actuator with Kalsi's opposing balance stem.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 7-9 and 11-18 of the ’897 patent as unpatentable.