Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13145349 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/145,349 09/26/2011 Donald Wayne Allen
23632 7590 10/04/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TH3629US 4436
EXAMINER
WARREN, STACYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD WAYNE ALLEN, MICHALAK.IS EFTHYMIOU,
DEAN LEROY HENNING, GUIDO LEON KUIPER, and
LILEE
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Donald Wayne Allen et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
claims 26 and 31 as anticipated by Horton (US 2003/0221603 Al; pub. Dec.
4, 2003); and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 21, 22,
and 26-33 as unpatentable over Horton, (2) claim 10 as unpatentable over
Horton and McMillan (US 2006/0021560 Al; pub. Feb. 2, 2006), (3) claim
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejections and the claim objection made in the Final Rejection. See Advisory
Act. 2 (mailed Dec. 17, 2013); see also Final Act. 4--5 (mailed Oct. 10, 2013).
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
24 as unpatentable over Bliault (US 2003/0185631 Al; pub. Oct. 2, 2003)
and Horton, and (4) claim 25 as unpatentable over Nierenberg (US
2003/0159800 Al; pub. Aug. 28, 2003), Bliault, and Horton. Claims 6, 8,
15-20, and 23 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to systems and methods for
reducing drag and/or vortex-induced vibration ('VIV') of a plurality of
structures." Spec. 1:5---6, Figs. 1, 2A, 2B. Claims 1, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 31
are independent.
Claim 26 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
26. A system comprising:
an array of structures in a flowing fluid
environment, the array comprising at least 3 structures on
a periphery of the array and at least one additional
structure not on the periphery; and
vortex induced vibration suppression devices on at
least 2 of the structures on the periphery;
wherein at least one of the structures comprises no
vortex induced vibration suppression device.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Horton
Claims 26 and 31
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 26 and 31.
See Br. 6, 9-11. We select claim 26 as representative. Claim 31 stands or
falls with claim 26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
Independent claim 26 recites, in relevant part, "wherein at least one of
the structures comprises no vortex induced vibration suppression device."
Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Horton discloses the
system of claim 26 including "wherein at least one of the structures
comprises no vortex induced vibration suppression device (e.g. elongated
web 16 does not comprise a vortex induced vibration suppression device)."
Final Act. 5---6.
Appellants contend that Horton lacks "wherein at least one of the
structures comprises no vortex induced vibration suppression device." Br. 6;
see also id. at 9. In particular, Appellants contend that
the feature described [in paragraph 57 of Horton] is not an
alternative to that shown in the figures, but describes what is
shown in the figures and any reasonable interpretation of the
meaning of "some or all" must be consistent with what is shown
in the referenced figures (19, 20 and 23). In those figures, it is
clearthat each cell 12/14 has a strake 42 and that none of the cells
12/14 is without a strake 42 .... Appellants respectfully assert
that the phrase "some or all of the cells" taken in context does
not provide the teaching asserted because the sentence on which
the [Examiner] relies explicitly notes that it describes the specific
drawings and those drawings provide no support for an assertion
of "wherein at least one of the structures comprises no vortex
induced vibration suppression device." Rather, to the contrary,
those figures clearly show strakes 42 covering every visible cell,
either individually or as part of an array.
Br. 10; see also id. at 9, 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention because it
misapprehends the Examiner's rejection and is not responsive to the key
aspects of the Examiner's proposed rejection. As noted by the Examiner in
the Answer, "Appellants have not argued against the webs 16 being
considered structures in the array or the webs comprising no vortex induced
3
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
vibration suppression devices." Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 6 ("[E]longated
web 16 [of Horton] does not comprise a vortex induced vibration
suppression device."). As further noted by the Examiner, "Appellants
contend that all of the cells 12 or 14 comprise vortex induced vibration
suppression devices, however, this argument is not relevant to this specific
rejection because the webs [16 of Horton] are considered to be the structures
that comprise no vortex induced vibration suppression devices." Ans. 2. 2
Appellants' arguments do not address this finding by the Examiner and,
thus, do not apprise us of Examiner error. See Br. 6-11.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 26 as anticipated by Horton. We further sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 31, which falls with claim 26.
Obviousness over Horton
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 21, 22, and 26-33
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 21, 22, and 26-33 as a
group. See Br. 6-7. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7,
9, 11-14, 21, 22, and 26-33 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address claim 3 separately below.
2 Regarding Appellants' contention that "the meaning of 'some or all' must
be consistent with what is shown in the referenced figures" and "each cell
12/14 [of Figures 19, 20, and 23 of Horton] has a strake 42 and that none of
the cells 12/14 is without a strake 42" (Br. 10), we note that Horton discloses
that "helical strakes can be disposed on an outer peripheral surface of all or
some of the cells of the hull." Horton para. 21 (emphasis added); see also id.
at Abstract ("Stepped helical strakes can be disposed on an outer peripheral
surface of the platform or some of the cells.") (emphasis added).
4
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
The Examiner finds:
Although Horton does not specifically disclose that a structure in
the array that first encounters the predominant current comprises
at least one vortex induced vibration suppression device, it would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at
the time of the invention, to include at least one vortex induced
vibration suppression device on the structures that first encounter
the current because these structures would be subjected to the
highest loads.
Final Act. 7.
Appellants contend:
The Examiner appears to be taking Official Notice of facts
not in the record, or the Examiner is relying on "common
knowledge" in making the rejection without documentary
evidence to support the Examiner's conclusion .... Appellants
respectfully submit that the Examiner is merely assuming a
relationship between load and desirability of vortex induced
vibration suppression devices, a relationship not supported by
documentary evidence.
Br. 6-7.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner states:
The purpose of a vortex induced vibration suppression
device is to reduce vibration loads on a structure, thus protecting
said structure from damage caused by vibration. Therefore there
is an inherent relationship between vibration load and
desirability of vortex induced vibration suppression devices.
When considering like structures such as the cells 14 of Horton,
a greater vibration load on a structure would inherently result in
a greater need for a vortex induced vibration suppression device
such as strakes 42. The structure that is first to encounter the
predominant current would not have the benefit of shielding from
the other structures and would therefore be subject to a higher
vibration load from the current, thus it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to place at least one vortex induced vibration
suppression device on that structure. Further, the purpose of a
5
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
vortex induced vibration suppression device (e.g., strakes 42) is
to reduce vibration loads therefore it is unclear in the absence of
factual evidence or explanation how "the strakes of Horton
would likely increase the load" as contended by the Appellants.
Ans. 3--4. The Examiner's findings and conclusions are based on rational
underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants contend that (1) "Horton lacks 'wherein at least one of the
structures comprises no vortex induced vibration suppression device"' (Br.
6); and (2) "since Horton does not disclose which structures should, or
should not, have strakes (vortex induced vibration suppression devices), it is
difficult, if not impossible, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to
place any vortex induced vibration suppression device with respect to
current" (Id. at 7). These arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above,
Appellants do not address the Examiner's finding that "elongated web 16 [of
Horton] does not comprise a vortex induced vibration suppression device."
See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 2; Br. 6-11. Moreover, as noted above,
Horton discloses that "helical strakes can be disposed on an outer peripheral
surface of all or some of the cells of the hull." Horton para. 21 (emphasis
added); see also id. at Abstract ("Stepped helical strakes can be disposed on
an outer peripheral surface of the platform or some of the cells.") (emphasis
added); see note 2.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Horton. We further sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 21, 22, and 26-33, which
fall with claim 1.
6
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
Claim 3
Appellants contend:
Based on Horton's explicit disclosure, it is clear that the
platform itself is not a "floating vessel" as recited in Appellants'
claim 3, rather the structures are floating and supporting the
platform above the waterline. As such, the claim requirements
that "the structures comprise first ends that are connected to a
floating vessel" are not met by the disclosure from Horton.
Br. 8 (citing Horton, paras. 10, 14).
Here, the Examiner finds that platform 100 of Horton is a "floating
vessel." See Final Act. 7 (citing Horton, Fig. 20); see also Ans. 4.
Horton discloses:
Two exemplary cellular floating hulls 10 in accordance
with the present invention are respectively illustrated in the
elevation and top-and-side perspective views of FIG. 19 and 20,
wherein the respective hulls are each shown supporting an
equipment deck 102 of a spar-type, deep water, offshore oil and
gas drilling and production platform 100 floating upright in a
deep body of water and anchored to the seabed by a plurality of
mooring lines 104.
Horton, para. 38 (emphasis added; see also id. at para. 52 referring to
platform 100 "moving up and down."). Based on the foregoing, we agree
with the Examiner that Horton's platform 100 is a "floating vessel." See
Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Horton.
7
Appeal2014-009147
Application 13/145,349
Obviousness over Horton and McMillan, Bliault and Horton, or
Nierenberg, Bliault, and Horton
Claims 10, 2 4, and 2 5
Appellants contend that "Horton lacks 'wherein at least one of the
structures comprises no vortex induced vibration suppression device,"' and
that neither McMillan, Bliault, nor Nierenberg "remedy the deficiencies of
Horton." Br. 8-9. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As discussed
above in reference to claim 26, Appellants do not address the Examiner's
finding that "elongated web 16 [of Horton] does not comprise a vortex
induced vibration suppression device." Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 2; Br. 6-
11. As we find no deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 26 as anticipated by Horton, we likewise sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 10, 24, and 25.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7, 9-
14, 21, 22, and 24--33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8