Ex Parte Lundberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201712830336 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/830,336 07/04/2010 David Lundberg DryBoat P300US1 1337 104082 7590 11/08/2017 Mitchell Intellectual Property Law, PLLC 1595 Galbraith Ave. SE Watermark Center Grand Rapids, MI 49546 EXAMINER SULLENS, TAVIA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): svanholstyn@mitchelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID LUNDBERG and JON BARTNICK Appeal 2016-003925 Application 12/830,336 Technology Center 3700 Before: ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—11, 17, 20-23, 25—29, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-003925 Application 12/830,336 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of removing moisture from wood coring. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of removing structural weakening moisture from wood coring of a boat, comprising the steps of: forming a plurality of bores of about 1/4 of an inch to about 1/2 of an inch in diameter each, in moist wood coring to expose the moist interior of said coring; processing ambient air to remove more than 50% of the moisture from said ambient air, thereby creating a source of drier processed air; providing a plurality of conduits, one for each of said plurality of bores, each said conduit extending from said source of drier processed air to its respective one of said bores; and pumping or displacing said processed drier air through said conduits directly into each of said bores to dry said coring from within said bores. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Magnusson Storrer DeTurris Compressed Air Systems Guide (Pioneer) Gobin Rot Repair in Fiberglass Boats (Rotdoctor) US 6,079,119 US 6,886,271 B2 US 2005/0271800 A1 http://www.pioneerair.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/PDFBrochures/ Compressed_Air_Guide_Brochure.pdf FR 2,821,581 (Machine Translation) http://www.rotdoctor.com/glass/ GLrotrepair.html June 27, 2000 May 3, 2005 Dec. 8, 2005 Jan. 3, 1990 Sept. 6, 2002 Oct. 28, 2005 2 Appeal 2016-003925 Application 12/830,336 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—11, 20-22, and 25—29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rotdoctor, Pioneer, Magnusson, and Gobin. Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rotdoctor, Pioneer, Magnusson, Gobin, and Storrer. Claims 17 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Rotdoctor, Pioneer, Magnusson, Gobin, and DeTurris. OPINION The Examiner finds that Rotdoctor teaches a majority of the features of independent claims 1 and 21. Final Act. 7—8, 12—13. Relevant to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner also finds that “Rotdoctor does not specifically disclose providing a plurality of conduits, one for each of said plurality of bores, each said conduit extending from said source of drier processed air to its respective one of said bores.” Id. at 7. However, the Examiner finds that “Magnusson teaches providing a plurality of conduits, one for each of said plurality of bores (see at least Figure 4, conduits #12 (one for each bore). . .).” Id. at 7—8. The Examiner then determines that “[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide the method of Rotdoctor with the steps of providing a plurality of conduits, one for each of said plurality of bores, ... to dry coring from within said bores, as taught by Magnusson, to ‘achieve a very good and uniform drying of the material.’” Id. at 8. Appellants contest the findings surrounding Magnusson, arguing that “[tjhere is no forming [of] a plurality of. . . bores in the bale of hay [of 3 Appeal 2016-003925 Application 12/830,336 Magnusson]” and “[tjhere is no use of a plurality of conduits, one connected to each bore.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds that Magnusson does teach “conduits” and, independent of Magnusson, “Rotdoctor’s suggestion of the use of compressed air to dry the wood coring in the bores would necessarily require the use of one or more conduits to direct the compressed air into the bores.” Ans. 14—15; see also Final act. 2. Neither of these positions are supported by the evidence provided by the Examiner. First, Magnusson shows a single conduit positioned within a single bore in a bale of hay used to direct drying air into the hay. None of the figures or portions of Magnusson cited by the Examiner appear to support a finding that “Magnusson teaches providing a plurality of conduits, one for each of said plurality of bores.” See Final Act. 7. Second, the Examiner provides no support for the position that Rotdoctor “necessarily require[s] the use of one or more conduits to direct the compressed air into the bores.” Ans. 15 (emphasis added). Though Rotdoctor teaches using “[cjompressed air . . . to dry wood quickly” (Rotdoctor 12), the Examiner provides no evidence in Rotdoctor or elsewhere that this would involve the use of more than one conduit, let alone “necessarily require” it. We do not sustain the rejections of the claims as they rely on these unsupported findings and conclusions. 4 Appeal 2016-003925 Application 12/830,336 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—11, 17, 20—23, 25— 29, and 32 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation