Ex Parte Root

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2013

11007471 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE RAYMOND ROOT JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-004640
Application 11/007,471
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004640
Application 11/007,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 44 to 64. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 44 is illustrative:
44. A system comprising: a munitions platform for use
in water, wherein the munitions platform comprises:
a frame for providing mechanical support, wherein the
frame includes:
(a) a housing having at least one waterproof
compartment for receiving an electronics-containing
subsystem;
(b) a first rolling plate; and
(c) a second rolling plate, wherein the first and
second rolling plates are similarly-sized and are disposed
at opposite ends of the housing, wherein the plates are
circular and, at a circumference thereof, provide a rolling
surface;
a munitions subsystem for providing munitions and
underwater launch capability, wherein the munitions subsystem
comprises a plurality of sealed munitions canisters that
are disposed around and outside of the housing; and
a depth control subsystem for actively changing a depth
of the munitions platform under water.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 44, 48, 49, 51, 54 to 58, 62, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Borgwarth (US 6,487,952 B1; iss. Dec. 3, 2002)
and OceanWorks Int’l Corp., SUBMARINE RESCUE EQUIPMENT
TRANSFER POD CAROUSEL ASSEMBLY
(http://www.oceanworks.cc/cmslpdfs/9-4%
Appeal 2011-004640
Application 11/007,471

3
20Transfer%20Pod%20Carousel.pdf) (last visited Apr. 15, 2009)
(hereinafter ELSS).
2. Claims 45 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Borgwarth, ELSS, and Last (US 3,696,251; iss. Oct. 3, 1972).
3. Claims 50, 59, 60, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Borgwarth, ELSS, and Official Notice.
4. Claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Borgwarth, ELSS, and Woodruff (US 4,004,265; iss. Jan. 18, 1977).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because of a failure to
provide a reason with a rationale underpinning for modifying the Borgwarth
reference, so as to include a plurality of sealed munitions canisters that are
disposed around and outside of the housing?

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that neither reference discloses or suggests a
plurality of sealed munitions canisters that are disposed around and outside
of the housing. The Examiner relies on ELSS for disclosing this element of
claim 44.
We find that ELSS discloses a transfer pod carousel for delivering the
transfer pods to the sea floor for transfer to a disabled submarine (page 1).
ELSS does not disclose that the carousel includes munitions canisters. In
fact, ELSS does not disclose anything about munitions or munitions
canisters.
Appeal 2011-004640
Application 11/007,471

4
The Examiner recognizes that Borgwarth does not disclose multiple
canisters disposed as claimed, but reasons that since ELSS discloses a
plurality of canisters disposed around and outside of a housing, it would
have been obvious to include the plurality of canisters, disposed around and
outside of the housing, in order to achieve the predictable result of
increasing the firepower of munitions platform by allowing it to carry
multiple munitions subsystems in an efficient manner.
We agree with the Appellant that since Figure 1 of Borgwarth already
discloses that multiple munitions canisters are used (col. 3, ll. 65-67), there
would be no increase in the firepower of munitions by mounting the
plurality of munitions around a housing as claimed. In addition, as the
transfer pods of ELSS are not used in connection with munitions, it is not
understood why one or ordinary skill in the art would apply the teaching in
ELSS of the arrangement of transfer pods in connection with munitions. As
such, on this record the Examiner has not provided a reason with a rational
underpinning for modifying the Borgwarth device so as to include multiple
canisters disposed around and outside of the housing.
As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44. We
will also not sustain the rejection of the remaining claims because each of
the claims require a plurality of munitions canisters disposed around and
outside of a housing and each of the rejections relies on the combination of
Borgwarth and ELSS.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

Appeal 2011-004640
Application 11/007,471

5
REVERSED

hh