Ex Parte Krehbiel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2013

11830078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2013)

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.
11/830,078 07/30/2007 Drew Krehbiel 06-19 2259
7590 03/12/2013
Christian N. Heausler
Kellogg Brown & Root LLC
601 Jefferson Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
SINGH, SUNIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3672
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2013 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 DREW KREHBIEL
and RICHARD D’SOUZA
____________

Appeal 2011-000608
Application 11/830,078
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anders (US 4,102,144;
iss. Jul. 25, 1978) and Stone (US 3,807,179; iss. Apr. 30, 1974). App. Br. 5,
10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-000608
Application 11/830,078

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A structure for an offshore installation, comprising:
a body adapted to be disposed at least partially about a
primary structure of an offshore installation;
one or more fixed protrusions disposed about an outer
surface of the body, wherein the fixed protrusions
have a first end adapted to break ice; and
a support system disposed on the body adapted to isolate
the body from the primary structure such that the
body can absorb at least a portion of ice generated
vibrations.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group. App. Br. 11-14. We select
claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2-20
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner found that Anders discloses an offshore installation
structure with a body 28, 128, 228 about a primary structure 14, 214, and a
support system adapted to isolate the body from the primary structure so the
body can absorb at least a portion of ice generated vibrations. Ans. 4. The
Examiner also found that Anders lacks fixed protrusions, but Stone discloses
fixed protrusions (arms 42, 52) secured or fastened to a member 44, 54 about
an outer surface of a body with a first end adapted to break ice. Ans. 4. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Anders to
include such protrusions on an outer surface of the body to more effectively
break up ice. Ans. 4. The Examiner interpreted the term “fixed” to mean
“securely placed or fastened” and found that the protrusions (arms 42, 52) of
Appeal 2011-000608
Application 11/830,078

3
Stone are secured/fastened to body 44, 54 as depicted in Figures 2 and 3.
Ans. 5. The Examiner determined that “fixed” is not limited to mean only
“not movable” as Appellants argue. Ans. 6. As a result, the Examiner found
that the pivotable arms 42, 52 of Stone are considered fixed, because when
hydraulic cylinder 46 is fully extended, the protrusion is fixed at that point.
Ans. 6-8. The Examiner reasoned that Appellants’ definition of “fixed”
includes “firmly placed or attached” and thus the term “fixed” is not limited
to mean only “not movable.” Ans. 8-9. The Examiner determined that this
definition is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that
protrusions 25 can be welded “or otherwise fixed to the outer surface of the
body 20.” Ans. 6 (citing Spec. para. [0034]).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of “fixed” is
unreasonably broad because “fixed” means “firmly placed or attached; not
movable” or “securely placed or fastened: STATIONARY.” App. Br. 12
(citation omitted); Reply Br. 3 (citation omitted). Appellants also argue that
Stone’s arms 42 are pivotable or moveable about their upper end to break up
the ice pack and a pivotally mounted protrusion is not the same or equivalent
to a fixed mounted protrusion. App. Br. 11-12. These arguments do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the term “fixed”
includes “securely placed or fastened” and is not limited to meaning only
“not movable.” Stone discloses arms 42, 52 that are fixed at their upper end
to an apron 44 or sleeve 54 and near their lower end to a hydraulic cylinder
46, 56. See Stone, col. 3, ll. 36-59; figs. 2, 3. Although arms 42, 52 can
pivot, the upper end of arms 42, 52 are fixed to the apron 44 or sleeve 54 and
are not movable or removable at that point. The Examiner’s finding is
within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term and we decline to
Appeal 2011-000608
Application 11/830,078

4
read limitations from the Specification into the claims or to limit claim 1 to a
particular embodiment where the language of claim 1 is broader. The
Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which
discloses that “[t]he protrusions 25 can be welded or otherwise fixed to the
outer surface of the body 20.” Spec. 10, para. [0034]. Appellants do not
provide an express definition of the term “fixed” in their Specification. The
Examiner also found that Stone can extend or position the lower end of arms
42, 52 to a fully extended state that is considered to be a fixed position. Ans.
6. Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings in
this regard, either. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-20.
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

mls