Ex Parte Petit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2014

11878312 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEBASTIEN PETIT AND GUY SAVOZ
____________

Appeal 2011-011437
Application 11/878,3121
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to the Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest for this appeal is:
Soletanche Freyssinet.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2011-011437
Application 11/878,312

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. Method for demounting a cable tensioned
between a first and a second anchorage point on a
structure comprising the following steps:
freeing a running part of the cable from said
first and second anchorage points;
supporting said running part of the cable;
and
removing said running part of the cable
away from at least one of said first and second
anchorage points,
wherein supporting and removing said
running part of the cable are performed with the
aid of a plurality of supports distributed along said
running part of the cable and forming cradles for
said running part of the cable, each held by at least
one other cable situated higher than said cable, the
cradles being connected to each other and being
mounted so that they can move along said other
cable.

Rejections
Claims 1–10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stubler (US 6,701,599 B2, iss. Mar. 9, 2004) and Sherman
(US 2003/0000414 A1, pub. Jan. 2, 2003).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stubler, Sherman, and Grubbs (US 3,381,527, iss. May 7, 1968).

Appeal 2011-011437
Application 11/878,312

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a “[m]ethod for demounting a cable tensioned between
a first and a second anchorage point on a structure” including the step of
“freeing a running part of the cable from said first and second anchorage
points.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (italics added).
The Examiner finds “element 3” of Stubler evidences a first
anchorage point on a structure and “element 6” of Stubler evidences a
second anchorage point on a structure. Ans. 3–4, 10. Notably, “element 3”
of Stubler is described as anchorages and “element 6” of Stubler is described
as a jaw. Stubler, col. 3, ll. 31, 51.
As for anchorages 3 evidencing a first anchorage point on a structure,
Stubler’s figures depict anchorages 3 on civil engineering structure 1. See
Stubler, figs. 1, 1a–c, 2, 3; see also Stubler, col. 3, ll. 28–32. As such, we
agree with the Examiner that Stubler’s anchorage 3 evidences a first
anchorage point on a structure.
As for jaw 6 evidencing a second anchorage point on a structure, the
Examiner explains, “[jaw] 6 may be considered to be an anchorage point
since it acts to fasten the cable to the left wall, via a hydraulic
cylinder/piston system (figure 3, elements 7, 4, 5, and 6; column 3, lines 44–
55).” Ans. 10.
The Appellants contend jaw 6 does not evidence a second anchorage
point on civil engineering structure 1. See Reply Br. 5. The Appellants
assert that jaw 6 “attaches the free end of the piston 5 of Stubler’s hydraulic
system to a portion of the sheath of Stubler’s cable 2.” Reply Br. 5 (citing
Stubler, col. 3, lines 50–52). The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. Put
Appeal 2011-011437
Application 11/878,312

4
simply, the Examiner does not adequately explain how jaw 6 evidences an
anchorage point on civil engineering structure 1.
Further, and more broadly, the Examiner does not adequately explain
how Stubler’s jaw 6 evidences an anchorage point. See Reply Br. 5–6; see
also Appeal Br. 11–12. For example, Stubler describes, “the demounting
device comes to bear on a zone of the structure which is adjacent to one of
the anchorages 3.” Stubler, col. 3, ll. 35–37 (italics added). Based on this
description we understand Stubler’s “bearing zone” to be part of a structure,
e.g., structure 1. Also, Stubler describes, “[a]nother member for retaining
the cable is positioned in the vicinity of the bearing zone so as to prevent the
cable from escaping; this may be, for example, an anchoring point.”
Stubler, col. 3, ll. 51–54 (italics added). Based on this description and the
description above, we understand Stubler’s “anchoring point” to be in the
vicinity of the bearing zone of a structure. The Examiner does not
adequately explain how jaw 6 is in the vicinity of the bearing zone of a
structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Stubler’s
own disclosure to consider jaw 6 as an “anchorage point.”
Additionally, the Examiner does not rely on Sherman’s disclosure to
evidence a second anchorage point as claimed. Thus, the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims, as unpatentable over Stubler
and Sherman is not sustained.
Furthermore, the remaining rejection based on Stubler and Sherman in
combination with Grubbs relies on the same erroneous finding that Stubler’s
jaw 6 evidences a second anchorage point on a structure. As such, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Stubler, Sherman, and
Grubbs.
Appeal 2011-011437
Application 11/878,312

5

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–12.

REVERSED

llw