Ex Parte Craig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2014

12192526 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER HAROLD 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 REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellant has filed a Request for Rehearing (“Request”) under 37
C.F.R. § 41.52. The Request seeks reconsideration of our Decision on
Appeal dated July 2, 2014 (“Decision”), affirming the rejection of claims 1–
7, 9, and 11 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). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant contends that
[t]he Decision overlooks or misapprehends Appellant’s
arguments at pages 9–10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2–3 of
the Reply Brief, which explain that modifying Hutchins with
the drill bit of Standish would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art because the inherently flexible cable
Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526

2
bolt of Hutchins makes it unsuitable for use with the drill bit of
Standish
and that “the Decision overlooked or misapprehended the evidence
presented in the Declaration of Peter Craig and pertinent case law regarding
the asserted combination.” Req. Reh’g 2. We did not overlook or
misapprehend Appellant’s arguments or evidence. As indicated in our
decision, “we are not persuaded that the combination of Hutchins and
Standish fails to teach a drill bit and corresponding hollow tube appropriate
for drilling.” Dec. 4. Nor are we persuaded that Hutchins teaches away
from the Examiner’s proposed combination. Hutchins and Standish each
teach bolts including hollow tubes used to support walls and roofs in
underground excavations, such as mines, and Standish teaches including
cutting tips (drill bit) on the hollow tube for drilling into rock. Id. at 3–4
(citing Hutchins 1:5–8, 4:19; Standish 1:5–13, 3:21–36). Appellant offers
no persuasive explanation as to why a hollow tube in the bolt resulting from
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Hutchins and Standish would not
be appropriate for drilling.
Neither the Appeal Brief nor the Reply Brief directly addresses why
such a hollow tube would not be appropriate for drilling. Nor do the Appeal
Brief or the Reply Brief point to any evidence, such as the Craig
Declaration, to support this contention. Instead, pages 9–10 of the Appeal
Brief and pages 2–3 of the Reply Brief (cited by Appellant in this request)
simply allege, generally, that a cable bolt would not have sufficient rigidity
for drilling. Although paragraph 12 of the Craig Declaration concludes that
“[t]he torsion and bending forces acting on a hollow shaft during drilling
into rock would far exceed the strength of a flexible hollow tube used in
cable bolt construction,” this conclusion is not cited in either the Appeal
Appeal 2012-003132
Application 12/192,526

3
Brief or the Reply Brief. Moreover, no evidence is provided to support Mr.
Craig’s conclusion and, as noted above, Standish uses a bolt including a
hollow tube for drilling.

DECISION
We have carefully considered the arguments presented in Appellant’s
Request for Rehearing and we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or
overlooked any arguments raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief or the
Reply Brief. Accordingly, the Request is denied.
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) .
DENIED

mls