Ex Parte Tack

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

13121634 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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.
13/121,634 06/16/2011 Bruno Tack 0702-1602381 1588
28289 7590 07/27/2017
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
MISA, JOAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 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):
patents @ webblaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUNO TACK
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
Technology Center 3600
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
17, 19-29, 31, and 33.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a drag head for a trailing suction hopper
dredger and method for dredging using the drag head. Spec., 1:4—'7. Claims
17 and 31 are independent. App. Br. 13, 15. Claim 17, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
17. A drag head of a trailing suction hopper
dredger, comprising:
a visor which is dragged over a bottom under water
and therein loosens soil, and
a suction pipe which is connected to the visor and
which discharges the loosened soil,
wherein the visor includes at least two individually
movable pressure elements that are adjacently
arranged transversely of the dragging direction,
wherein each said pressure element is provided
with a number of penetrating bodies which transmit
forces to the bottom under the influence of the weight
of each said pressure element,
wherein the pressure elements are received in the
visor by means of guide means such that the pressure
elements are substantially freely translatable in a
direction substantially perpendicularly of the bottom.
1 Claims 18 and 32, which stood rejected in the Final Action, (Final Act. 1),
were canceled in an amendment entered after Final Action. See App. Br. 3.
REFERENCES
Steinkuhler
Tack
US 5,603,171
WO 2006/027325 A1
Feb. 18, 1997
Mar. 16, 2006
2
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
REJECTION
Claims 17, 19—29, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tack and Steinkuhler. Ans. 2.2
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not separately argue the claims on appeal. Reply Br.
10—21. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claim 17 as
representative of the appealed claims and decide the appeal on the basis of
claim 17 alone. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner asserts that Tack’s pressure solids 20 (which include
pressure plates 21, on which disc-shaped penetrating bodies 22 are mounted)
correspond to the claimed individually moveable pressure elements that are
received in the visor by guide means—Tack’s “unnumbered hinge
connection and spring connection 28 that allows the pressure plate 21 to
revolve around axis 29 so that the pressure bodies 22 ‘are more capable of
following the profile of the soil.’” Ans. 2—3 (quoting Tack, 14:5—6); see
Tack, 11:33—12:2, 12:24—26, Figs. 4a, 7. The Examiner acknowledges that
Tack fails to disclose moveable pressure elements that are adjacently
arranged transversely to the dragging direction. Id. at 3. Therefore, the
Examiner relies on Steinkuhler’s teaching of a similar visor or hood of a
dredger drag head comprising several “roof parts” 34 that are adjacently
arranged transversely of the dragging direction to “account for unevenness
of the waterbed.” Id. (citing Steinkuhler, 4:36-40, 5:57—6:3, Fig. 4).
According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
2 The Examiner designates this rejection as a new ground of rejection in
response to an amendment after Final Action. Ans. 2; see May 27, 2014
Advisory Act.
3
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
drag head of Tack such that the penetrating elements (20)3 are adjacently
arranged transversely of the dragging direction, as taught by Steinkuhler, in
order to enhance the ability of the pressure elements to follow any
unevenness on the waterbed and further allow for adaptation to the
waterbed.” Id. at 4.
Appellant raises a number of arguments in response to this rejection.
We address each in turn. First, Appellant argues that Tack’s pressure
elements are not individually moveable because “control bars 10a, 10b . . .
connect two visors to each other preventing an individual movement of the
pressure plates inside the visors.” Reply Br. 3. We disagree. The control
bars limit, but do not eliminate, angular deviation of one visor in relation to
an adjacent visor. Tack, 12:26—27, Fig. 5. The control bars do not appear to
otherwise affect the movement of the pressure plates within the visors.
Appellant also identifies spring connections 28 as preventing individual
movement of the pressure plates. Reply Br. 3^4. But Figure 6 of Tack
shows a plurality of pressure plates each capable of movement about its own
axis 29. Tack, Fig. 6.
Second, Appellant argues that Tack does not teach that its pressure
plates are adjacently arranged transversely of the dragging direction, but
3 Appellant asserts that in referring to “penetrating elements,” the Examiner
has “mixed up two elements of the claims, i.e., ‘pressure elements’ and
‘penetrating bodies.’” Reply Br. 6. But the Examiner uses reference
number 20 in connection with this term, i.e., “penetrating elements 20.”
Ans. 4. This makes clear that the Examiner is referring to the structure in
Tack that the Examiner contends corresponds to the claimed pressure
elements. See Ans. 2—3 (contending that Tack’s pressure solids 20,
including pressure plates 21, correspond to the claimed pressure elements).
4
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
rather are arranged consecutively in the dragging direction. Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellant goes on to argue that the consecutive arrangement is “not
optional,” such that Tack teaches away from the transverse arrangement. Id.
at 5. This argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not identify any
teaching in Tack that could be characterized as disparaging the claimed
transverse arrangement of pressure elements. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than
one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).
Third, Appellant argues that Steinkuhler teaches using water jets but
does not teach using pressure elements. Reply Br. 5—6. However, we
understand the Examiner to be relying on Tack, not Steinkuhler, as teaching
pressure elements; the Examiner relies on Steinkuhler as teaching transverse
arrangement of “roof parts”—not water jets—to compensate for an uneven
waterbed. See Ans. 2-4. In a related argument, Appellant asserts that
Steinkuhler’s use of water jets rather than penetrating bodies somehow
renders Steinkuhler “not applicable” to Tack. Reply Br. 6. But, as the
Examiner points out, Steinkuhler’s water jets are an “alternate type” of
penetrating body, Ans. 9, because they loosen the soil underneath the drag
head. Steinkuhler, 1:43—49. Appellant fails to explain how Steinkuhler’s
arrangement of its water jets renders Steinkuhler’s teaching of its
arrangement of its roof parts inapplicable to Tack.
Fourth, Appellant argues that Tack’s pressure elements are not
“received” in the visor by means of the hinge connections and spring
connections that the Examiner asserts correspond to the claimed guide
5
Appeal 2016-000308
Application 13/121,634
means. Reply Br. 7. Instead, Appellant argues, Tack’s hinges only allow
rotation of the pressure plates and do not allow for a substantially free and
substantially perpendicular translation of the pressure plate. Id. We do not
find this argument persuasive. Tack itself characterizes the motion of
pressure plates 21 around axes 29 as “translation substantially perpendicular
to the soil surface.”4 See Tack, 14:11—14 (stating that spring connection 28
is “executed in such a way that the pressure plate 21 with penetrating bodies
22 can perform a translation substantially perpendicular to the soil surface
50”). To the extent that Appellant is arguing that Tack’s hinges and springs
do not allow “substantially free” movement, Appellant has not explained
what “substantially free” means in light of the Specification, or why the
movement of Tack’s pressure plates would not be considered substantially
free.
In sum, Appellant has not apprised us how the Examiner erred in
concluding that claims 17, 19—29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable over Tack and
Steinkuhler.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 19—29,
31, and 33 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 Appellant appears to be the named inventor of the Tack Reference. See
Tack, cover page; App. Br., cover page.
6