Ex Parte Bellin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 201813510880 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/510,880 07/30/2012 Massimo Bellin 26111 7590 08/13/2018 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. 3045.0110001/MBR/KEC 9088 EXAMINER LAMBE, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2018 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): e-office@stemekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASSIMO BELLIN, GIOVANNI MASSARI, and PAOLO BONEL Appeal 2016-007 461 Application 13/510,880 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Massimo Bellin et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral hearing was conducted on August 2, 2018, with Kyle E. Conklin, Esq., appearing on behalf of Appellants. We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-007 461 Application 13/510,880 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for laying a pipeline in a bed of a body of water. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method of laying a pipeline in the bed of a body of water, the method comprising the steps of: advancing a digging assembly along a pipeline laid along a path on the bed of the body of water; digging a trench along the path in the bed of the body of water by means of the digging assembly, so a portion of pipeline settles onto the bottom of the trench; acquiring, by means of the digging assembly, data related to the bathymetric profile of the portion of pipeline laid on the bottom of the trench, the data including the depth of the portion of pipeline laid on the bottom of the trench; comparing the acquired data with a set of permissible values indicating permissible arching of the pipeline in a vertical plane; emitting an error signal when the acquired data does not fall within the set of permissible values; and modifying a depth of the trench as a function of the error signal to modify arching of the pipeline in the vertical plane. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1-3, 8-12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grinsted (US 4,759,138, issued July 26, 1988) in view of Schwalbe (US 4,229,809, issued Oct. 21, 1980); and 2 Appeal 2016-007 461 Application 13/510,880 (ii) claims 4--7, 13, 16-18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grinsted in view of Schwalbe, and a document providing a general description of open source software tools collectively referred to as Generic Mapping Tools or GMT (retrieved from web.archive.org/web/20070102222126/http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmtUS) (hereafter "GMT"). ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 8-12, 14, 15, 19, and 20--0bviousness--Grinsted/Schwalbe Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for laying a pipeline, and independent claim 18 is directed to a digging assembly for laying a pipeline, the latter having device limitations using "configured to" language that parallels the method steps. The Examiner finds that Grinsted discloses the claimed invention, with the exception of acquiring depth coordinates as part of the bathymetric data acquired to be used in determining whether the data is within a range of permissible values. Final Act. 2. The Examiner cites to Schwalbe as disclosing an underwater position measurement system that acquires, inter alia, depth coordinates of an object of interest, for use in determining the position of that object. Id. The Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to modify Grinsted to acquire and send back to a controller, all coordinates described in Schwalbe, in that such would be combining known elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. Id. The Examiner further concludes that, once modified to acquire data relative to depth, it would have been obvious to modify the path of the trenching system using that depth data, and to modify the depth of the trench as a function of an 3 Appeal 2016-007 461 Application 13/510,880 error signal to modify the arching of the pipeline in a vertical plane. Id. at 2-3. According to the Examiner, such modifications are seen as being a "logical and sound general engineering practice [] utilizing all the data available." Id. at 3. The reasons to modify the Grinsted device articulated by the Examiner are not only mainly generic and conclusory, they are not supported by rational underpinnings. Grinsted does not evidence a ready capability to modify a depth of a trench that has been dug as the pipeline laying process is performed. The depth of the trench dug with the Grinsted plow is controlled by a pair of skids 16, which, although disclosed as being adjustable, are not disclosed as being capable of being adjustable based on remote commands, nor does such adjustability appear to be an inherent capability. See Grinsted 2:53-57; Figs. 1, 3, 9; Appeal Br. 12. Further, the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure in Grinsted that the plow therein may be "flown" over obstacles such as rocks, pipelines or cables, as teaching the step of modifying the bottom of the trench as a function of an error signal, is misplaced. Final Act. 2 (citing Grinsted 6:34-- 50). As pointed out by Appellants, Grinsted does not disclose that the lifting or flying of the plough is done in response to any error signal, as required by the claims, nor is reliance on some error signal necessarily the manner in which the lifting or flying is carried out. Appeal Br. 12. Moreover, the claims require the modification of the depth of a trench that has already been dug, whereas the flying of a plough over an obstacle implies that the "modification" of the depth of the trench is that no trench is dug in that region in the first place. 4 Appeal 2016-007 461 Application 13/510,880 Consistent with the lack of a capability to adjust trench depth so as to be able to modify the depth of a trench initially dug, Grinsted is only concerned with attempting to eliminate or reduce side (in a horizontal orientation) forces exerted by rollers 31 as the plough is towed and steered in laying the cable. Grinsted 4: 13-16, Appeal Br. 10. The value of adding to Grinsted the ability to determine the depth of a pipeline in a trench is highly questionable given the above-noted lack of ability to adjust trench depth, not to mention the absence of any recognition in Grinsted that vertical arching may be of concern and that certain magnitudes of vertical arching are desirably to be avoided. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as that of claims 2, 3, 8-12, 15, 19, and 20 depending therefrom, is not sustained. Claims 4-7, 13, 16-18, and 21--0bviousness--Grinsted/Schwalbe/GMT This rejection suffers from the same deficiencies as does the rejection discussed in the preceding section. The Examiner does not rely on GMT in any manner that might cure such deficiencies. The rejection of claims 4--7, 13, 16-18, and 21 is not sustained for the same reasons set forth above. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, and 21 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation