Ex Parte Jarvis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2017

14269091 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/269,091 05/03/2014 Charles Dwight Jarvis P150247 6671
71949 7590 12/13/2017
CROSE LAW LLC
112 NORTHBROOKE TRACE
WOODSTOCK, GA 30188
EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES DWIGHT JARVIS
____________

Appeal 2017-009369
Application 14/269,0911
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 7 and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to composite tubular
structures.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 7 is the only independent claim on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 7 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
7. A composite tubular structure comprising:
a bonding material;

1 According to Appellant, “[t]he present Application is owned by
inventor/applicant Charles Dwight Jarvis.” Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009369
Application 14/269,091

2

a separate equal sided polygon inner tube disposed inside
a separate round or square outer tube;
wherein the polygon tube is dimensioned such that all
corners of the polygon tube can be joined with the bonding
material to an interior surface of the round or square outer tube;
and
wherein there is a physical contact between at least a
portion of an outer surface of the inner tube, the bonding
material, and at least a portion of the interior surface of the outer
tube, thereby configured to provide the composite tubular
structure with an increased resistance to twists and bends.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Tada (US 6,283,159 B1, iss. Sept. 4, 2001).
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tada.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tada and Weatherwax (US 2,929,408, iss. Mar. 22, 1960).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection of claim 7 based on Tada
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 7
is erroneous because although claim 7 requires a polygon inner tube, “[t]he
inner tubes of Tada’s patent are not true polygons. In fact, Tada describes
them as ‘a deformed pipe having a deformed cross-sectional shape.’” Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). We disagree with Appellant, however, and agree with
the Examiner’s reasoning on pages 9–12 of the Examiner’s Answer. By way
of specific example, we agree with the Examiner that Tada’s deformed
Appeal 2017-009369
Application 14/269,091

3

pipe 2, as shown in Figures 3b, 4, and 5a, appears to be an example of a
simple isotaxal star polygon. See id. at 10. We also agree with the
Examiner that it appears that in Tada “[e]ach arm of the star is formed by
two straight sides” (id. at 11), and that notwithstanding that in Tada portions
of the polygon are “rounded,” Appellant does not persuade us that a
deformed pipe with rounded portions that otherwise exhibits a polygonal
shape fails to teach the claimed polygon tube (see id. at 11–12). Thus, based
on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 7.
Obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8 based on Tada
Regarding claim 7, inasmuch as we sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 7 based on Tada, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7.
We point out that even assuming arguendo that the claimed polygon tube
requires pointed ends, only “routine skill in the art [would be required] to
make the star shape [of Tada’s deformed pipe 2] with pointed ends instead
of rounded” (Answer 12).
Appellant does not argue separately against the obviousness rejection
of claim 8. Therefore, we sustain claim 8’s rejection for the same reason we
sustain claim 7’s obviousness rejection.
Obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8 based on Tada and
Weatherwax
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8 based on
Tada and Weatherwax relies on a finding that Tada teaches or renders
obvious the claimed polygon tube. See, e.g., Answer 4–5. Thus, we sustain
this obviousness rejection for the same reasons we sustain the above
rejections of claims 7 and 8.

Appeal 2017-009369
Application 14/269,091

4

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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