Ex Parte Pollack et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 201311352595 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/352,595 02/13/2006 Jack Pollack 05/127 6751 7590 09/06/2013 Leon D. Rosen FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN Suite 1220 10960 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 EXAMINER BUCK, MATTHEW R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3674 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2013 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 JACK POLLACK, DAVID C. RIGGS and FENG GUO ____________ Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jack Pollack et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-11. Claims 1-8 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 9, 10 and 11 are independent, claim 9 is reproduced below: 9. A method for installing a riser to extend between a FPU (floating production unit) and a well head lying at the sea floor, by connecting lengths of pipe sections in series while holding them primarily vertically at a side of said FPU and lowering the pipe sections into the sea, to create a pipe string which has a near end at said FPU and an opposite far end which is repeatedly lengthened, and when the far end of the pipe string portion lies in the vicinity of one of said well heads lowering said far end and connecting it to the well head, wherein said step of lengthening includes coupling said far end of said pipe string to a tug line on a tug boat and operating said tug boat to pull said far end forwardly away from said FPU while said pipe string portion extends from said FPU to said tug line of said tug boat, wherein: said step of lengthening includes initially positioning the tug boat at a tug position (A) close to the PDU and extending a long enough length of said tug line from a winch on said tug boat to the far end of the pipe string while said pipe string includes at least one pipe section, so the tug line extends from the tug boat in a double catenary curve to the pipe string, and operating said winch to pull the tug pull line to shorten it until the tug line extends in a single catenary curve from the far Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 3 end of the pipe string to the tug boat and the pipe string extends in a double catenary curve; repeatedly moving the tug boat to positions (B, C) progressively further away from said FPU, to move the pipe string far end closer to the well head. PRIOR ART Pollack WO 2004/035375 A1 Apr. 29, 2004 GROUND OF REJECTION Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pollack. OPINION The Examiner finds that Pollack discloses each and every limitation of independent claims 9-11. Ans. 3-4. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that Pollack discloses every limitation except that Pollack lacks to show said step of lengthening includes initially positioning the tug boat at a tug position close to the PDU and extending a long enough length of said tug line from a winch on said tug boat to the far end of the pipe string while said pipe string includes at least one pipe section, so the tug line extends from the tug boat in a double catenary curve to the pipe string, and operating said winch to pull the tug pull line to shorten it until the tug line extends in a single catenary curve from the far end of the pipe string to the tug boat and the pipe string extends in a double catenary curve; repeatedly moving the tug boat to positions progressively further away from said FPU, to move the pipe string far end closer to the well head; said step of lengthening includes moving said tug boat forwardly in steps and then Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 4 maintaining the tug boat at a constant geographic location, and includes performing said step of connecting lengths of pipe sections in series while monitoring the angle from the vertical of near pipe end portion, while the tug boat is maintained at the constant geographic location; and said step of operating said tug boat to pull said pipe string far end includes moving said tug boat to pull said far end of the pipe string away from the FPU, with most movement of the pipe string far end produced by tug boat movement rather than by shortening the length of the tug line. Ans. 4. Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use both the tug boat and the tug line together to achieve the desired result, which is keeping the tug line short and using the tug boat to pull the riser closer to the well head, since a tug boat is capable of being positioned where needed and a tug line is capable of being attached to the riser at a point where it will form a double catenary curve based on gravity until the tug line is pulled in to form a single catenary curve, as seen in Fig. 2, which will cause the riser to form a double catenary curve, also seen in Fig. 2. This makes it possible to keep most of the riser off the sea floor and prevent damages to the riser, since this avoids the excess weight from the tug line. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to keep the tug boat at a constant location while pipe sections are added to the riser, since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 5 performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since the expected result of this configuration improves efficiency of the design. Ans. 4-5. With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants argue “Pollack does not suggest applicant’s method of moving a tug boat progressively further from the production vessel (from A to B to C, etc. in applicant’s Fig. 3).” App Br. 5. In response to this argument the Examiner finds that “there is an arrow above the work vessel 38 in Fig. 2 that factually indicates that the vessel moves away from the production vessel 1 while connected to the riser 9.” Ans. 5-6. In response to this finding, Appellants agree that “Pollack’s Fig. 2 shows an arrow over his tug boat 38;” however, Appellants note that Pollack “does not say what it means.” Reply Br. 1. Appellants argue that the arrow may indicate “winding [of] the tug line, since the tub boat is already over the wellhead 7.” Id. Appellants further argue that “Pollack says (his p. 4, l[l]. 23-25) that ‘Instead of a work vessel 38 for pulling the riser 9, it may be pulled to the well head by a moored vessel using a winch[.]’ A moored vessel does not move while it is moored.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that “there is no indication in Pollack that he moves his tug boat in steps to pull out a growing pipe string.” Id. We may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). On the record before us there is no factual basis for the Examiner’s finding that “the vessel moves away from the production Appeal 2011-008972 Application 11/352,595 6 vessel 1 while connected to the riser 9.” Ans. 6. Pollack is silent with respect to what the arrow over the tug boat in figure 2 indicates. The arrow could indicate movement of the tug boat, it could indicate movement of the winch or it could indicate something else entirely. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s finding, and Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. For these reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Claims 10 and 11 contain similar limitations pertaining to moving the tug boat, and the rejections of claims 10 and 11 are reversed for the same reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9-11 are REVERSED. REVERSED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation