Marcel Matiere

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020004049 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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. 13/133,555 06/08/2011 Marcel Matiere 0510-1299 3981 466 7590 05/26/2021 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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): pair_nixon@firsttofile.com ptomail@nixonvan.com yandtpair@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCEL MATIERE Appeal 2020-004049 Application 13/133,555 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Societe Civile De Brevets Matiere (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-004049 Application 13/133,555 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for producing a reinforced concrete part. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for producing a reinforced concrete part (1) comprising, a step of molding concrete around at least one tensioned longitudinal bar (21) to form a reinforced concrete part, on either side of a neutral line (10), a compressed portion (C) and a tensioned portion (T) subjected to tensile stresses and having a tendency to elongate under the effect of the load supported by the part, and in which is embedded a reinforcing frame (2) comprising, in the tensioned portion, said at least one tensioned longitudinal bar (21) securely attached to the concrete by an adhesion link determining, along said tensioned longitudinal bar (21), a tangential adhesion stress varying according to the tensile stresses applied, respectively, to the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) and to the coating concrete (16), an increase in the tensile stress in the concrete above a limit value causing at least one crack (3) to open with a transfer of the tensile stress to the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) and a corresponding elongation thereof, at least in the most stressed portion of the part, said tensioned longitudinal bar (21) consisting in a discontinuous series of spaced blocking areas (25), each blocking area (25) comprising a plurality of anchoring means (23), the blocking areas (25) being separated from one another by slippage areas (26) with no anchoring means, the blocking areas and slippage areas being integrally formed in the tensioned longitudinal bar (21), wherein said slippage areas (26) are shorter than said blocking areas (25), and wherein each blocking area extends over a length that is at least equal to a sealing length (10) of the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) determining an adhesion stress that is at least equal to the maximum tensile stress that is acceptable for the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) and less than twice said Appeal 2020-004049 Application 13/133,555 3 sealing length (l0) of the reinforcing tensioned longitudinal bar, each slippage area extends over a length less than a sealing length (1'0) of a smooth bar with equivalent round section, whereby in each of the slippage areas, a local increase in the tensile differential between the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) and the concrete above a limit value results in a detachment of the tensioned longitudinal bar (21) relative to the concrete (16) that coats it, over at least a portion (27) of the length of said slippage area (26) included between two blocking areas (25a, 25'a), said detached portion (27) being able to elongate without disturbing the coating concrete (16) under the effect of the tensile stresses applied to the tensioned longitudinal bar (21). REJECTION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–6, 8, 12–17, 20, 21, 23–26 112, first paragraph Written Description OPINION For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph written description requirement, the applicant’s specification must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Appellant’s independent claims (1 and 23) require “molding concrete around at least one tensioned longitudinal bar (21) to form a reinforced concrete part.” The Examiner finds that the Appellant’s Specification does not “provide for a step of tensioning that occurs during molding the concrete” (Ans. 5), and that “tensioning while molding is not inherent when making Appeal 2020-004049 Application 13/133,555 4 reinforced concrete because prestressed concrete is not always and necessarily obtained when molding concrete and a bar” (id.). It is proper to use the Specification to interpret what the Appellant means by a word or phrase in a claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Appellant’s Specification states that 1) the invention is a method for producing a reinforced concrete part comprising a compressed portion and “a tensioned portion subjected to tensile stresses and having a tendency to elongate under the effect of the load supported by the part, and in which is embedded a reinforcing frame comprising, in the tensioned portion, at least one tensioned longitudinal bar securely attached to the concrete” (¶ 34),2 and 2) “the forces applied to the reinforced concrete part 1, for example a deflection moment, result in the elongation of the tensioned portion T of the part and, consequently, the tensioning of each tensioned bar 21 and of the concrete 16 that coats it” (¶ 114). Thus, the Specification indicates that the claim term “tensioned longitudinal bar” refers to a longitudinal bar that is in a portion of the reinforced concrete part which has a tendency to elongate under a load and which, when subjected to a load sufficient to elongate it, tensions the longitudinal bar. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5), the Appellant’s claims do not require the tensioned longitudinal bar to be in tension during the step of molding concrete around it.3 2 Citations to the Specification are to Pub. No. US 2011/0244211 A1. 3 The prestressed concrete discussed in the Appellant’s Specification (¶ 5) and referred to by the Examiner (Ans. 5) is a prior art product, not the product of the Appellant’s recited step of molding concrete around at least one tensioned longitudinal bar (Appeal Br. 10–11). Appeal 2020-004049 Application 13/133,555 5 The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of lack of written description of the Appellant’s claimed method. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8, 12–17, 20, 21, and 23–26 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8, 12– 17, 20, 21, 23–26 112, first paragraph Written Description 1–6, 8, 12– 17, 20, 21, 23–26 REVERSED