Ex Parte MCCAVOUR

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2001

09097860 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THOMAS C. MCCAVOUR
__________
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
___________
HEARD: October 11, 2001
___________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Thomas C. McCavour appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 23, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “concrete reinforced corrugated
metal plate arch-type structures, such as used in overpass
bridges, water conduits, or underpasses, capable of supporting
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
1 At the oral hearing, appellant’s counsel stated that the
“second set of corrugated plates” recited in claim 16 were the
same as the “second series of . . . corrugated metal plates”
recited in parent claim 3, and that claim 18 should depend from
claim 16 rather than claim 15.
2
large superimposed loads” (specification, page 1).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:1
1. A composite concrete reinforced corrugated metal arch
structure comprising:
i) a first set of shaped corrugated metal plates
interconnected in a manner to define a base arch structure of a
defined span cross-section, height and longitudinal length, said
base arch having a crown section and adjoining hip sections for
said span cross-section and corrugated metal plates of defined
thickness having corrugations extending transversely of the
longitudinal length of said arch to provide a plurality of curved
beam columns in said base arch;
ii) a second series of shaped metal plates interconnected in
a manner to overlay and contact the first set of interconnected
plates of said base arch, said second series of interconnected
plates extending continuously in the transverse direction to
include at least said arch crown and being secured directly to
said first set of interconnected plates;
iii) said interconnected series of second plates and said
first set of plates defining a plurality of individual,
transversely extending, enclosed continuous cavities, each said
cavity being defined by an interior surface of said first set of
plates and an opposing interior surface of said second series of
plates;
iv) concrete filling each said continuous cavity from cavity
end to end as defined by the transverse extent of said second
series of plates, said concrete filled cavity defining an
interface of said concrete encased by said metal interior
surfaces of said interconnected second series of plates and first
set of plates;
v) said interior surfaces of said cavity for each of said
first and second plates having a plurality of shear bond
connectors at said encased concrete-metal composite interface,
said composite shear bond connectors being a rigid part of said
first and second plates to ensure that the concrete and metal act
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
2 An English language translation of this reference,
prepared on behalf of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, is appended hereto. The record also contains a
translation submitted by the appellant with the main brief (Paper
No. 10). We have used the Office translation in discussing the
reference in this decision.
3
in unison when a load is applied to said arch structure, said
shear bond connectors providing a plurality of curved beam column
stiffeners to enhance combined positive and negative bending
resistance and axial load resistance of said base arch structure,
there being a sufficient number of said second series of plates
to provide a sufficient number of said curved beam column
stiffeners to support anticipated loads imposed on said
structure.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Sivachenko 4,186,541 Feb. 5, 1980
Gurtner et al. (Gurtner) 4,318,635 Mar. 9, 1982
Wilson et al. (Wilson) 5,326,191 Jul. 5, 1994
Sattler et al., (Sattler)2 2657229 Jul. 28, 1977
German Patent Document
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wilson,
Gurtner, Sivachenko and Sattler.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 13) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 3 and 11) for the respective
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
3 The record indicates that the instant application is a
continuation of Application 08/662,070, filed June 12, 1996, now
U.S. Patent No 5,833,394, granted November 10, 1998. Given the
similarities between the appealed claims and the patent claims,
in the event of further prosecution the examiner may wish to
consider whether a double patenting issue exists.
4
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this rejection.3
DISCUSSION
I. Grouping of claims
The appellant allows that for purposes of this appeal “the
claims stand or fall together” (main brief, page 4). Therefore,
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have chosen representative
claim 1 and shall decide the appeal on the basis of this claim
alone. Claims 2 through 23 shall stand or fall with claim 1.
II. The merits of the rejection
Wilson discloses a corrugated metal box culvert 78 having a
crown 82, haunches 84 and sidewalls 80. A continuous corrugated
metal reinforcement 86 overlies at least a major portion of the
crown, and possibly portions of the haunches and sidewalls, and
preferably extends the length of the culvert. Bolts connect the
troughs of the corrugated reinforcement to the crests of the
corrugated culvert to define transversely extending cavities (see
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
5
Figure 6) which serve to optimize the load carrying capacity of
the culvert.
Gurtner discloses a similar culvert structure 10 composed of
a corrugated metal arch and a plurality of corrugated metal
reinforcing ribs secured to the arch to define transversely
extending cavities.
It is not disputed that the culvert disclosed by either
Wilson or Gurtner responds to all of the limitations in claim 1
except for those pertaining to the concrete fillings and the
shear bond connectors. The examiner’s reliance on Sivachenko and
Sattler to cure these shortcomings is well founded.
Sivachenko discloses a corrugated steel plate structure
designed for use in a variety of applications including box
culverts. As described by Sivachenko with reference to Figure 7,
to increase the strength and rigidity of the plate, two
[corrugated] plates 2 can be secured to each other to
form a double plate 24 by aligning respective peaks and
troughs 6, 8 and intermittently securing the aligned
peaks and troughs to each other with bolts 26, rivets
or welds (not shown). Interior spaces 28 can be filled
with concrete 30 and for that purpose the upper
corrugated plate may be provided with a plurality of
spaced-apart concrete filling holes 32 through which
the fresh concrete can be introduced into the interior
spaces [column 7, lines 55 through 64].
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
6
Sattler discloses a stiffener for the trimmed, sloped end of
a corrugated pipe culvert 1. According to the reference,
[e]ach of these stiffeners consists of a corrugated
sheet bent into a pan 3 which encompasses the cut end
of the corrugated pipe 1 from below and runs with a
radial separating space from it in a circumferential
direction as can be seen in particular in Figures 1 and
2. Sheet metal pan 3 is attached to corrugated pipe 1
with the aid of threaded bolts 4 and forms with its
edge corrugations 5 guide beads for walls 6 which close
off the annular space created between sheet metal pan 3
and corrugated pipe 1 in the direction of the pipe
axis. This annular space has a concrete filling 7
which, with the aid of headed stud connectors [8], is
firmly joined to sheet metal pan 3 and corrugated pipe
1 so that, for the stiffener, a composite structure is
created in which tensile forces are absorbed by the
corrugated sheets of pipe 1 or of pan 3 and the
compressive forces are absorbed by concrete filling 7
[translation, pages 6 and 7].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found
ample suggestion or motivation in Sivachenko’s disclosure of the
strengthening and stiffening benefits of concrete fillings in a
corrugated metal structure and in Sattler’s disclosure of the
force-absorbing advantages afforded by headed stud connectors
which firmly join such fillings and metal structure to provide
the corrugated metal arches disclosed by Wilson and Gurtner with
concrete fillings and shear bond connectors of the sort recited
in claim 1. The express teachings in the prior art relating to
these benefits/advantages belie the appellant’s position that the
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
7
proposed reference combination stems from impermissible
hindsight.
The related argument (bolstered by the publication appended
to the main brief) that an arch structure having the curved beam
column stiffeners recited in claim 1 (i.e., the enclosed
cavities, concrete fillings and shear bond connectors) embodies
surprising and unexpected resistance to various stresses and
forces so as to “permit greatly increased spans for the arch
structures and novel clearance envelopes for the arch structures
which are very significant compared to the prior art” (main
brief, page 4) is also unpersuasive. To begin with, claim 1 does
not specify any particular span length or a novel clearance
envelope. Thus, this line of argument is not commensurate with
the relatively broad scope of the claim. Moreover, given the
fair teachings of the applied prior art with respect to the
strengthening, stiffening and force-resisting properties of
concrete fillings and shear bond connectors, it is neither
surprising nor unexpected that curved beam column stiffeners of
the type recited in claim 1 would impart increased strength to an
arch structure.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of Wilson,
Gurtner, Sivachenko and Sattler justify the examiner’s conclusion
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
8
that the differences between the subject matter recited in claim
1 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. We shall therefore
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and
of claims 2 through 23 which stand or fall therewith.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 23
is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-1654
Application 09/097,860
10
JPM/kis
LEE, MANN, SMITH, MCWILLIAMS,
SWEENEY & OHLSON
P. O. BOX 2786
CHICAGO, IL 60690-2786