Ex Parte Thompson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

13660121 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 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.
13/660,121 10/25/2012 Wayne Leslie Thompson SBD0004US 8793
23413 7590 08/14/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street CHU, KATHERINE J
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE LESLIE THOMPSON and
HARRY CHARLES TATE1
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 10—19 and 21—26. App. Br. 4.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Seabed Services LLC is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed November 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”); the
Advisory Action mailed January 23, 2015; the Appeal Brief filed
May 18, 2015 (“App. Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 23, 2015 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
[An] apparatus for placement of a mat underwater is
provided that includes a frame configured to be attached to a
lifting mechanism and a connector mechanism disposed on the
frame configured to couple to a first side of the mat and support
the mat when coupled to and lifted by the first side. The
apparatus also includes a release mechanism coupled to the
connector mechanism and configured to release the mat from the
connector mechanism upon receiving an input.
Abstract.
Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Crowe (US 4,201,494; issued May 6, 1980) and Sprague et al.
(US 7,862,256 B2; issued Jan. 4, 2011, hereinafter “Sprague”). Final Act.
2-3.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Crowe, Sprague, and Zandwijk (US 2005/0180820 Al; published
Aug. 18, 2005). App. Br. 3^4.
Claim 18, 19, 21, and 24—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Daniel et al (US 6,406,217 B1 (issued June 18, 2002,
hereinafter “Daniel”), Sprague, and Taguchi et al. (JP 04007413; published
Jan. 10, 1992, hereinafter “Taguchi”). Final Act. 4—5.
Claim 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Daniel, Sprague, Taguchi, and Zandwijk. Final Act. 5—6.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
CLAIMS 10-17
Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of appealed
claims 10—17:
10. A method of placing a mat, the method comprising:
providing a mat comprising a plurality of fabric cells
formed from a first fabric layer and a second fabric layer,
wherein ports in each of the fabric cells provide fluid
communication between each of the fabric cells;
pumping the plurality of fabric cells with a filling material
at a loading site;
coupling a connector mechanism on a frame to a first side
of the filled mat, wherein the connector mechanism only
releasably couples [] to an edge of the first side;
lifting the filled mat by a lifting mechanism coupled to the
frame only on the first side, wherein the frame and connector
mechanism support the filled mat when lifted by the first side;
and
lowering the filled mat into a body of water via the lifting
mechanism.
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Crowe discloses claim 10’s step relating to
coupling a connector mechanism, as well as the step of lifting the mat by a
lifting mechanism, which, in turn, is coupled to the frame only on a first
side. Final Act. 2 (explaining that the claimed connector mechanism is
interpreted as reading on Crowe’s sling 62, but not Crowe’s cables 56). The
Examiner reiterates in the Answer that the connector mechanism
corresponds to Crowe’s sling 62 and additionally clarifies that the claimed
edge of the mat’s first side is being mapped to Crowe’s upper bar 48, which
is adjacent to the support bar 60 and cable/pulley system 52, 54, 56, 58.
Ans. 3 (setting forth an annotated reproduction of Crowe, FIG. 1).
3
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
The Examiner relies upon Sprague for teaching the details of the
claimed mat and sets forth a rationale for combining the references’
teachings in a manner that the Examiner concludes renders claim 10
obvious. Id. at 2—3.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that “neither Crowe nor Sprague
teaches or suggests a connector mechanism that only releasably couples with
an edge of the first side.” App. Br. 11. In Appellants’ view,
Crowe describes a connector mechanism with a bottom support
bar 8 coupled with an edge of the first side, suspension cables 6
passing through blocks 2, wherein suspension cables 6 allow
blocks 2 to be held together, and a spreader bar 48 coupled with
an edge of the second side.
While the Examiner alleges that the connector mechanism
is clearly separate and does not require the second edge (Page 3
of Advisory Action dated January 23, 2015), Appellants
respectfully submit that the connector mechanism of Crowe
would not be able to retain blocks 2 if only a single edge is
engaged. Appellants submit that Crowe requires coupling of two
edges to allow the use of suspension cables 6 and the retention
of blocks 2.
Id. Appellants argue that Crowe, instead, “requires coupling of two
edges to allow the use of suspension cables 6 and retention blocks 2.”
Id.
Analysis
Crowe’s sling 62 reasonably can be interpreted as being “a connector
mechanism on a frame”—e.g., on Crowe’s support bar 60. Final Act. 2.
And sling 62 is releasable from hook 64. Crowe, e.g., FIG. 1. Crowe
additionally makes clear that the sling-and-cable system is coupled to at least
the opposing side of Crowe’s mat via the combination of bottom support bar
8 and channel bar 32:
4
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
To support the bottom of the [mat block] panel when the
latter is lifted, and to transfer the weight of the blocks 2 to the
suspension cables 6, a bottom support bar 8 is utilized. . . .
Within the channel of the bar 8 is a further channel section
bar 32 which is retained therein by cross straps 34 bridging the
channel of the member 8, the bar 32 being capable of lengthwise
motion limited by a pin 36 passing through the channel 32 and
engaging slots 38 in the bar 8. . . . When the cables 6 are in the
slots 10, and the bar 32 is moved lengthwise so that the ferrules
enter the other arms 44 of the L-shaped slots extending parallel
to the length of the bar, the cables are locked into the bar.
Crowe col. 3,1. 28—col. 4,1. 2.
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently, though, how the sling
62—either alone or in combination with support bar 60—is releasably
coupled to the edge of only the mat’s adjacent “first side. ” Id. (emphasis
added).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10. We
therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection claim 10, or of claims
11—16, which depend from claim 10.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 17, the
Examiner does not rely upon Zandwijk to cure the deficiency of the
obviousness rejection explained above. See Final Act. 3. We therefore do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 17 for the reasons set forth
above in relation to independent claim 10.
CLAIMS 18, 19, and 21-26
Independent claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of appealed
claims 18, 19, and 21—26:
5
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
18. A method of claim placing a mat, comprising:
providing a mat comprising a plurality of fabric cells
formed from a first fabric layer and a second fabric layer,
wherein ports in each of the fabric cells provide fluid
communication between each of the fabric cells;
pumping the plurality of fabric cells with a filling material
at a loading site;
coupling a first connector mechanism on a first frame to a
first edge of a first side of the filled mat;
coupling a second connector mechanism to a second edge
of a second side of the mat opposite the first side;
connecting the first connector mechanism and the second
connector mechanism by a support assembly so that when the
mat is lifted from the first side, the mat forms a J-shape;
lifting the mat from the first side;
releasing the first side of the mat and the second side of
the mat from the first connector mechanism and the second
connector mechanism to place the mat at selected location.
Findings
The Examiner finds that Daniel discloses, inter alia, claim 18’s steps
of coupling first and second connector mechanisms to first and second edges
of first and second sides of a mat. Final Act. 4; see also Adv. Act. 2
(clarifying that Daniel’s mat support straps 57 are interpreted as
corresponding to the claimed connector mechanisms). The Examiner further
interprets Daniel’s support lines 72 as constituting a part of the edge of
seabed mat 70. Ans. 4.
The Examiner relies upon Sprague for teaching the composition of the
claimed mat, relies on Taguchi for teaching “lifting a mat with a first and
second connection with an offset lifting arrangement,” and sets forth a
6
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
rationale for combining the references’ teachings in a manner that the
Examiner concludes renders claim 10 obvious. Final Act. 4.
Contentions and Analysis Regarding Daniel
Appellants argue the rejected claims require releasably coupling the
connector mechanisms to edges of the mat, but Daniel’s straps 57 are
coupled to the loop ends of the block support lines 72, and these support
lines do not constitute edges of the mat. App. Br. 14—15.
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellants point to no express
definitions within Appellants’ Specification or other extrinsic evidence that
would preclude Daniel’s support lines from being reasonably interpreted as
constituting part of the mat. Moreover, even if we were to assume arguendo
that Daniels support lines 72 could not be reasonably interpreted as
constituting an edge of the mat, we still would be unpersuaded of error.
Claim 18 does not require that the connector mechanisms be coupled
directly to the mat. Rather, claim 18 is written broadly enough to
additionally encompass indirect coupling schemes. During examination of a
patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364.
Contentions and Analysis Regarding Sprague
Appellants argue the following in relation to Sprague:
Sprague discloses pipeline weighing device to straddle the
longitudinal axis of a pipeline. The device is formed of a
plurality of interconnected, generally tubular-shaped lobes
arranged to straddle the pipeline in a balanced manner along the
longitudinal axis of the pipeline. Sprague is not cited to, and does
not describe the mat structure as specified in claim 18, nor the
7
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
manner in which the mat is lifted and then placed at the selected
location under water.
App. Br. 15.
Appellants first assertion—that Sprague does not describe the mat
structure as specified in claim 18—does not explain what particular claimed
structure Sprague allegedly lacks. Accordingly, the argument is
unpersuasive.
We turn now to Appellants assertion that Sprague fails to describe
“the manner in which the mat is lifted and then placed at the selected
location under water.” App. Br. 15. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 5),
“Sprague was not used in the combination to teach the manner in which the
mat is lifted.”
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding Sprague are
unpersuasive of error.
Contentions and Analysis Regarding Taguchi
Appellants argue
Taguchi contemplates a lifting device with a spreading
device to lift an object at two locations. Appellant submits that
such a spreading device is designed lift the load at two inboard
locations and not the edges as claimed. In claim 18, the mat is
releas[a]bly coupled at the first edge and the second edge.
App. Br. 15.
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 5), Taguchi was used in the
combination to teach offset (or J-shaped) lifting arrangements. Daniel was
relied upon to teach lifting from two edges.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding Taguchi are
unpersuasive of error.
8
Appeal 2016-003971
Application 13/660,121
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in relation to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 18, or of claims
19, 21, and 24—26, which depend from claim 18.
We therefore sustain this obviousness rejection, as well as the
additional obviousness rejection of dependent claims 22—24. Appellants do
not present separate arguments in relation to these claims, but, instead, argue
for their patentability based upon the reasons set forth in relation to
independent claim 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17—21 and 24—26 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10—16 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART
9