Ex Parte Nordstrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2017

13350390 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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.
13/350,390 01/13/2012 Charles J. Nordstrom GLAI138336 1784
26389 7590 08/18/2017
rTTRTSTRNSFN OTONNOR TOHNSON KTNDNFNN PT T C EXAMINER
1201 THIRD AVENUE LAMBE, PATRICK F
SUITE 3600
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3678
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2017 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):
efiling @ cojk. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES J. NORDSTROM, WILLIAM L. MOON III, and
BENJAMIN B. ACKERS
Appeal 2016-005667
Application 13/350,390
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005667
Application 13/350,390
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for installing a water-submersible platform
at a pre-determined depth, comprising:
connecting a water-submersible platform underneath in
relation to a vessel, wherein the vessel comprises a
plurality of rigid elongated, vertically aligned
spuds to connect the platform to the vessel, and the
platform when installed is unconnected to the
vessel;
transporting the platform through water underneath the
vessel to an installation site;
while the platform is unconnected to a sea floor and
underneath the vessel, exerting a downward force
with the rigid elongated spuds by vertically driving
the spuds to overcome a positive buoyancy of the
platform throughout vertical lowering of the
platform in the water from the vessel positioned
above the platform while the rigid elongated spuds
connecting the vessel to the platform stabilize the
platform during lowering of the platform to a pre­
determined depth without the spuds and platform
reaching the sea floor,
when the platform is at the pre-determined depth,
connecting the platform to the sea floor via
mooring elements; and
2
Appeal 2016-005667
Application 13/350,390
disconnecting the platform from the spuds after the
platform has been secured to the sea floor via the
mooring elements, wherein the platform is moored
at the pre-determined depth.
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sumner (US 3,874,180; iss.
April 1, 1975).1
The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 23 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sumner alone or in combination with an additional
reference.2
Appellants ’ Contention3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because “Sumner does not disclose that the platform has
positive buoyancy, nor [the spuds] exerting a downward force.” App. Br. 4
(emphasis omitted).
Claim 1 recites, “while the platform is unconnected to a sea floor
and underneath the vessel, exerting a downward force with the
rigid elongated spuds by vertically driving the spuds to overcome
a positive buoyancy of the platform throughout vertical lowering
1 As to claims 2—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24, our decision as to claim 1 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2 As to claims 18 and 23, our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except
for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-005667
Application 13/350,390
of the platform in the water from the vessel positioned above the
platform.”
Sumner discloses, the vessel V is in transit having a
ring-like module 212 carried therebeneath with the weight
thereof supported by the connectors 210.” Sumner, Col. 26,
lines 28—30.
Because Sumner describes that the “weight” needs to be
supported, one of ordinary skill would understand that the
platform (module 212) does not have positive buoyancy.
Further, the connectors 210 are cables. Sumner, Col. 26, lines
5—8. One of ordinary skill understands that cables can only
receive a tension force, not compression. One of ordinary skill
would understand that the cables support the platform, because
the platform has negative buoyancy that would cause the
platform to otherwise sink.
Accordingly, appellants submit that the platform
described by Sumner does not have positive buoyancy and would
sink of its own weight. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest
that the spuds exert a downward force to lower the platform.
App Br. 4—5.
[T]he Office does not point to any disclosure in Sumner that
teaches a downward force being applied by the spuds. Instead,
the Office cites generally to an entire column (Col. 25, line 57,
to Col. 26, line 49, of Sumner) without specifically mentioning
which part the Office reasons a downward force was being
applied by the spuds.
Reply Br. 6.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Sumner fails to disclose the argued limitations?
4
Appeal 2016-005667
Application 13/350,390
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we agree with Appellants that
Sumner fails to teach or suggest either the platform has positive buoyancy,
or the spuds exerting a downward force.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1—5, 8—10, 19, 21, 22, and 24 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 18 and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 8—10, 18, 19, and 21—24 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5