Asok Kumar. Nedumaran et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14764367 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
14/764,367 07/29/2015 Asok Kumar NEDUMARAN 87694/JPW/JAM 9798
23432 7590 10/31/2019
COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
WIEST, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASOK KUMAR NEDUMARAN, WEN SIN SHONG,
and KOK SENG FOO
____________

Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7–13, and 17–23.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(b). Keppel Offshore & Marine Technology Centre PTE LTD
is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 4–6 and 14–16 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to a method for vessel construction and
in particular, to a method for vessel modification to increase the storage
and/or deck space capacity of existing vessels to serve similar or a different
purposes.” Spec. 1, ll. 5–7.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method for constructing an FLNG, FSRU or a LNG
carrier, the method comprising:
separating a first existing LNG carrier to form a forward
section and an aft section;
placing a structural block into a space between the
forward section and the aft section, the structural block having a
front end and a rear end;
joining the forward section to the front end of the
structural block and joining the aft section to the rear end of the
structural block to form a new integrated vessel,
the structural block having been fabricated prior to
separating the first existing LNG carrier,
wherein the structural block includes a gas process
facility, and the gas process facility includes a regasification
plant or a liquefaction plant.
Appeal Br. (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 7–13, and 17–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ovseev (RU 2433060, pub. Oct. 11, 2011), Newman (EP
2228294 A1, pub. Sept. 15, 2010), and Nierenberg (US 2003/0159800 A1,
pub. Aug. 28, 2003).

Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 11 are both directed to a method for constructing an
FLNG (floating liquefied natural gas), FSRU (floating storage and
regasification unit), or LNG (liquid natural gas) carrier. Appeal Br. (Claims
App.). Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “separating a first existing LNG
carrier to form a forward section and an aft section” and “placing a structural
block into a space between the forward section and the aft section,”
“wherein the structural block includes a gas process facility, and the gas
process facility includes a regasification plant or a liquefaction plant.”
Claim 11 recites similar limitations. Id.
For claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds that Ovseev discloses a
method of constructing a marine vessel comprising, inter alia, separating an
existing marine vessel to form forward and aft sections; placing a structural
block into a space between these sections; and joining these sections to the
structural block to form a new integrated vessel. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner states Ovseev shows that “the method of separating an existing
vessel into sections and adding a new section is common in the art.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Ovseev does not disclose that
the vessel modified is an LNG carrier, or that the structural block includes a
gas process facility including a regasification plant or a liquefaction plant, as
claimed. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Newman teaches a vessel
for transporting liquefied natural gas (i.e., an LNG carrier) and Nierenberg
teaches adding a regasification plant onboard an LNG vessel. Id. (citing
Newman ¶ 1).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply Ovseev’s method and insert a structural
Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

4
block into an LNG carrier, as disclosed by Newman, where the structural
block includes a gas process facility having a regasification plant, as
disclosed by Nierenberg. Final Act. 3. The Examiner states that the
motivation for the modification is to apply existing methods of constructing
vessels to known types of vessels, such as an LNG vessel, and to equip the
LNG vessel with a gas process facility including a regasification plant to
increase the vessel’s functionality and reduce the required shore side
infrastructure. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner also states that the motivation
relied upon is provided by Ovseev, which “adds a new section to a vessel to
increase the capacity and extend the life of the vessel,” and the Examiner
“only relies on Newman to show that LNG vessels are known and on
Nierenberg to show that having a regasification plant is desirable.” Ans. 5.
Appellant contests the proposed combination by first pointing out that
each of applied references fails to disclose separating an existing LNG
carrier to form forward and aft sections, or a structural block including a gas
process facility including a regasification plant or liquefaction plant, as
claimed. Appeal Br. 9.
Newman discloses that the dominant approach to marine transport of
LNG utilizes vessels having hull structures designed for that purpose.
Newman ¶ 6. In contrast to that approach, Newman discloses a vessel for
transporting LNG comprising cryogenic containers mounted to the open
deck of the vessel, and means for transporting LNG to and from the
cryogenic container(s). Newman, Abstract. Figure 1b of Newman shows an
embodiment of the vessel including cryogenic containers 3–1 to 3–10 and
LNG pumping equipment 10 arranged on the open deck. Newman discloses
that “[t]he vessel according to the invention is particularly advantageous as it
Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

5
can be manufactured at low cost because it does not require a specially
adapted hull.” Newman ¶ 14. Newman states, “there is the opportunity to
economically design and build suitable vessels that maximise the open deck
area to enable greater volume of LNG to be transported using the proposed
method.” Id.
As noted by Appellant, Newman also discloses retrofitting existing
vessels to make them suitable for transporting LNG. Appeal Br. 12.
Regarding retrofitting, Newman describes
a method of modifying a vessel to make it suitable for the
transportation of liquefied natural gas comprising, mounting at
least one cryogenic container to the open deck of the vessel and
providing the vessel with means for transporting liquefied
natural gas into and out of the container. Utilising this method,
existing vessels can, therefore, be retrofitted very easily without
substantial modification of the original structure to incorporate
the cryogenic containers and a means for loading and
unloading the LNG to or from the containers.
Newman ¶ 16. Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Newman teaches
locating cryogenic containers and loading/unloading means on the open deck
of vessels for modified vessels as well.
Ovseev discloses a method of repairing ships, comprising dividing the
ship hull into two parts, moving the two parts apart from each other to fit an
extra block between them that maintains the deck level and central section
width, and then joining the block to the hull. See Ovseev, Abstract. Ovseev
indicates that the modification provides increased ship load capacity and
higher efficiency. Id. Ovseev discloses that Figure 1 shows a vessel prior to
reconstruction and Figure 2 shows a vessel following reconstruction. See
Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

6
Ovseev ¶¶ 19–20.3 As shown in Figure 2, the reconstructed vessel includes
an “additional block” 7. See id. ¶ 32.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided an
adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Newman’s LNG transport vessel in view of Ovseev and Nierenberg in the
proposed manner. Appeal Br. 13. Even if modifying Newman’s LNG
carrier by applying Ovseev’s method would increase the load capacity and
service life of Newman’s vessel by increasing the vessel’s length, Appellant
emphasizes that Newman teaches allocating an open deck on an existing
vessel for cryogenic containers and means for loading and unloading the
LNG from the containers, without substantially modifying the vessel’s
existing structure. Id. Newman discloses that “[v]essels having the LNG
stored exclusively in cryogenic containers mounted on the open deck have
the further advantage that the unused hull area may be utilised for the
transport of other cargo.” Newman ¶ 17 (emphasis added). Appellant
contends that a skilled artisan would not employ the method of modifying a
ship structure disclosed in Ovseev, such that the cryogenic containers and
other equipment can be fitted in the extra block between two divided parts of
the ship. Appeal Br. 13. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
provided an adequate reason with a rational underpinning why a skilled
artisan would have substantially modified the structure of Newman’s LNG
carrier in this manner to include Ovseev’s additional block, where Newman
discourages the storage of LNG in hulls in order to avoid substantial
modification of the original structure. In contrast, Newman teaches

3 We refer to the English-language translation of Ovseev mailed Oct. 2,
2017.
Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

7
“build[ing] suitable vessels that maximise the open deck area to enable
greater volume of LNG to be transported.” Newman ¶ 14.
Appellant points out that Nierenberg teaches the use of submerged
heat exchangers to enable heat transfer from surrounding seawater for
gasifying LNG on an LNG carrier. Id. at 13–14. Appellant contends that
when there is a need for space to be provisioned on an FLNG, FSRU, or
LNG carrier for a gas process facility, based on the teaching of Nierenberg, a
skilled artisan would have provisioned such space below deck, without
substantially modifying the ship’s structure, such as separating a forward
section and an aft section to place a new structural block between these
sections. Id. at 14. Although Nierenberg teaches regasifying LNG on board
an LNG carrier, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided
an adequate reason with a rational underpinning why a skilled artisan would
have substantially modified Newman’s LNG carrier to incorporate Ovseev’s
additional block and then modified the additional block to include
Nierenberg’s regasification structure.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11, or
their dependent claims 2, 3, 7–10, 12, 13, and 17–23, as unpatentable over
Ovseev, Newman, and Nierenberg.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.

Appeal 2018-002472
Application 14/764,367

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–13, and
17–23
§ 103(a) Ovseev,
Newman,
Nierenberg
1–3, 7–13,
and 17–23

REVERSED