Ex Parte Bianchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

12202082 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL BIANCHI
____________________

Appeal 2012-010339
Application 12/202,082
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JILL D. HILL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Bianchi (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 9–11, 14, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-010339
Application 12/202,082

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter with the key disputed limitation
italicized.
1. A bodyboard comprising:
buoyant lightweight material comprising a top surface to
receive a rider, and a bottom surface having a forward bow
section in the shape of a hull with longitudinally convex sides,
the bottom surface flattening from a center point between the
longitudinally convex sides of the hull toward aft corners of the
bottom surface to form a flat triangular surface.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9–11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Leach (US 5,362,269, issued Nov. 8, 1994) and
Brocone (US 4,886,476, issued Dec. 12, 1989). Ans. 4.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Leach, Brocone, and Taylor (US 4,028,761, issued June 14, 1977). Id.
at 5.
OPINION
The Examiner finds, among other things, that Leach discloses a flat
bottom, but does not disclose a triangle-shaped flat portion, but that Brocone
teaches a triangle-shaped flat portion 18, and that “[i]t would have been
obvious to form the flat bottom portion of Leach to be shaped in a triangular
fashion as taught by Brocone . . . for improved performance, directional
control, maneuverability and reduced drag.” Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues that, “considering the entirety of Brocone, it is
evident that bottom portion 18 is neither flattening nor a flat triangular
Appeal 2012-010339
Application 12/202,082

3
surface,” because Brocone’s bottom surface includes base control fins 23
that prevent the bottom surface from being “flat.” Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellant, a central apex 32 of Brocone is located between a
pair of planar surfaces 34, forming a concave (rather than flat) bottom
surface. Id. (citing Brocone, col. 3, ll. 49–51).
The Examiner responds that Leach discloses a flat bottom portion in
its Figures 4A and 4B, and that “while the bottom of Brocone . . . is very
slightly concave,” Brocone’s bottom “flattens” from the sharply curved bow
to the “generally flat bottom” such that Brocone teaches “a triangular-shaped
bottom.” Ans. 6.
The claims do not recite just a flat and/or triangular-shaped bottom.
Independent claim 1 recites “the bottom surface flattening from a center
point between [convex hull sides] toward aft corners of the bottom surface to
form a flat triangular surface.” Independent claim 6 recites “the bottom
surface including a planar section from a center point between the
longitudinally convex sides of the hull toward aft corners of the bottom
surface, the planar section being triangular along a horizontal axis and
direction from the bow of the bodyboard to the aft corners . . . .”
Independent claim 11 recites a bottom surface with “a V-shaped hull that
flattens . . . from a center point between longitudinally convex sides . . .
toward aft corners of the bottom surface to form a triangular planar section
along a horizontal axis and direction from the bow . . . to the aft corners
. . . .”
The Examiner fails to find that the references, alone or combined,
specifically teach a bottom portion of a bodyboard that flattens from a center
point between convex sides of a hull toward aft corners to create a
Appeal 2012-010339
Application 12/202,082

4
triangular-shaped flat portion. Further, we disagree with the Examiner that
Brocone’s disclosure supports a finding that its bottom flattens from the
sharply curved bow to create a triangular-shaped bottom. We therefore do
not sustain the pending rejections. Regarding claim 14, Taylor fails to cure
the deficiencies of the combination discussed above.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 9–11, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leach and Brocone.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Leach, Brocone, and Taylor.

REVERSED

hh