Ex Parte Craig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

12192526 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAROLD PETER CRAIG
____________________

Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced
below:
1. A rock bolt, the rock bolt comprising (i) a shank portion
comprising a hollow tubular member and a reinforcing
arrangement in use operating to reinforce the hollow tubular
Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526

2
member, the reinforcing arrangement and the hollow tubular
member defining discrete components and (ii) a drill bit
mounted on the tubular member.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hutchins (US 6,779,950 B1; iss. Aug. 24, 2004) and
Standish (US 5,374,140; iss. Dec. 20, 1994); and
2. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hutchins, Standish, and Eaton (US 5,785,463; iss. Jul. 28,
1998).

OPINION
Obviousness – Claims 1–7, 9, and 11
Appellant argues claims 1–7, 9, and 11 as a group. See App. Br. 8–
11. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–7, 9, and 11 stand or fall
with claim 1.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cites Hutchins as teaching a
rock bolt including “a hollow tubular member (12, see col. 4, lines 19,
hollow tube) and a reinforcing arrangement (strands 11).” Ans. 5. The
Examiner acknowledges that Hutchins’s rock bolt does not include a drill bit
mounted on the tubular member. Id. The Examiner cites Standish as
teaching “a drill bit (4) mounted on a tubular member (3),” and reasons that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Hutchins to include the drill bit as taught by
Standish in order [to] eliminate the need to drill a pilot hole and speed up the
process of inserting rock bolts.” Id. (citing Standish 1:60–2:10).
Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526

3
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness because the reasoning for the proposed
combination of Hutchins and Standish “is merely conclusory and fails to
sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the
cable bolt of Hutchins in view of Standish.” Id. at 9. This argument does
not apprise us of Examiner error because the Examiner has set forth an
articulated reason with rationale underpinning for the proposed combination
(i.e., “in order [to] eliminate the need to drill a pilot hole and speed up the
process of inserting rock bolts”). Ans. 5.
Appellant further argues that the cable bolt in Hutchins does not
include a drill bit, and alleges that the cable bolt in Hutchins does not have
sufficient rigidity to be suitable for drilling. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant cites the Declaration of Peter Craig to support the allegation that
the cable bolt of Hutchins does not have sufficient rigidity for drilling. App.
Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
because these arguments attack the references individually, rather than the
combination proposed by the Examiner. As noted above, the Examiner does
not rely on Hutchins disclosing a drill bit. See Ans. 5. Instead, the
Examiner proposes modifying the cable bolt of Hutchins based on the drill
bit taught by Standish. See id. As indicated by the Examiner, Hutchins
teaches the use of a hollow tube in the cable bolt (Hutchins 4:19), and
Standish similarly discusses use of a hollow tube for its bolt (Standish 3:21–
25). The bolts in Hutchins and Standish are both used to support walls and
roofs in underground excavations, such as mines. See Hutchins 1:5–8;
Standish 1:5–13. Standish explains that cutting tips (drill bit) are located on
the hollow tube, and that the hollow tube with cutting tips is used for drilling
Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526

4
into rock. Standish 3:26–36. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Hutchins and Standish fails to teach a drill bit and
corresponding hollow tube appropriate for drilling.
For these reasons, Appellant has failed to apprise us of Examiner
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, and 11
as obvious over Hutchins and Standish.
Obviousness – Claims 8 and 10
Claims 8 and 10 depend from claim 1. Appellant does not provide
separate arguments for claims 8 and 10 and, instead, argues that Eaton fails
to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 11. Because we
are aware of no such deficiencies, we also sustain the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 8 and 10 as obvious over Hutchins, Standish, and Eaton.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchins and Standish.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchins, Standish, and
Eaton.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mp