Ex Parte Nordstrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 2017

13350390 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017)

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. 13/350,390 01/13/2012 Charles J. Nordstrom GLAI138336 1784 26389 7590 08/18/2017 rTTRTSTRNSFN OTONNOR TOHNSON KTNDNFNN PT T C EXAMINER 1201 THIRD AVENUE LAMBE, PATRICK F SUITE 3600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3678 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2017 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): efiling @ cojk. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES J. NORDSTROM, WILLIAM L. MOON III, and BENJAMIN B. ACKERS Appeal 2016-005667 Application 13/350,390 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-005667 Application 13/350,390 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for installing a water-submersible platform at a pre-determined depth, comprising: connecting a water-submersible platform underneath in relation to a vessel, wherein the vessel comprises a plurality of rigid elongated, vertically aligned spuds to connect the platform to the vessel, and the platform when installed is unconnected to the vessel; transporting the platform through water underneath the vessel to an installation site; while the platform is unconnected to a sea floor and underneath the vessel, exerting a downward force with the rigid elongated spuds by vertically driving the spuds to overcome a positive buoyancy of the platform throughout vertical lowering of the platform in the water from the vessel positioned above the platform while the rigid elongated spuds connecting the vessel to the platform stabilize the platform during lowering of the platform to a pre determined depth without the spuds and platform reaching the sea floor, when the platform is at the pre-determined depth, connecting the platform to the sea floor via mooring elements; and 2 Appeal 2016-005667 Application 13/350,390 disconnecting the platform from the spuds after the platform has been secured to the sea floor via the mooring elements, wherein the platform is moored at the pre-determined depth. Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sumner (US 3,874,180; iss. April 1, 1975).1 The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sumner alone or in combination with an additional reference.2 Appellants ’ Contention3 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because “Sumner does not disclose that the platform has positive buoyancy, nor [the spuds] exerting a downward force.” App. Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Claim 1 recites, “while the platform is unconnected to a sea floor and underneath the vessel, exerting a downward force with the rigid elongated spuds by vertically driving the spuds to overcome a positive buoyancy of the platform throughout vertical lowering 1 As to claims 2—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24, our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 2 As to claims 18 and 23, our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein. 3 Appeal 2016-005667 Application 13/350,390 of the platform in the water from the vessel positioned above the platform.” Sumner discloses, the vessel V is in transit having a ring-like module 212 carried therebeneath with the weight thereof supported by the connectors 210.” Sumner, Col. 26, lines 28—30. Because Sumner describes that the “weight” needs to be supported, one of ordinary skill would understand that the platform (module 212) does not have positive buoyancy. Further, the connectors 210 are cables. Sumner, Col. 26, lines 5—8. One of ordinary skill understands that cables can only receive a tension force, not compression. One of ordinary skill would understand that the cables support the platform, because the platform has negative buoyancy that would cause the platform to otherwise sink. Accordingly, appellants submit that the platform described by Sumner does not have positive buoyancy and would sink of its own weight. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the spuds exert a downward force to lower the platform. App Br. 4—5. [T]he Office does not point to any disclosure in Sumner that teaches a downward force being applied by the spuds. Instead, the Office cites generally to an entire column (Col. 25, line 57, to Col. 26, line 49, of Sumner) without specifically mentioning which part the Office reasons a downward force was being applied by the spuds. Reply Br. 6. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because Sumner fails to disclose the argued limitations? 4 Appeal 2016-005667 Application 13/350,390 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellants’ above contention, we agree with Appellants that Sumner fails to teach or suggest either the platform has positive buoyancy, or the spuds exerting a downward force. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (3) On this record, claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24 are reversed. REVERSED 5