Ex Parte Waldock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10850999 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WILLIAM L. WALDOCK
_____________

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008
_______________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-16, which are all
of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a catamaran and a method for inserting or
extracting people, articles or equipment at sea. Claims 1 and 9 are
illustrative:

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

2
1. A catamaran, which comprises:

(a) a pair of spaced-apart pontoons, each having a forward tapered
end and a rearward end;

(b) an underwing affixed to said pontoons and spanning
therebetween, said underwing having a forward end and a
rearward end;

(c) a platform pivotally connected to one or more of said
underwing forward end or said underwing rearward end, and
conforming to the pontoons at their forward tapered end or
rearward end, respectively, said platform having a forward end;
and

(d) a power assembly connected to said platform for one or more
of lowering or raising said platform from a stowed position to a
plurality of working positions and for one or more of raising or
lowering said platform back to said stowed position.

9. A method for one or more of insertion or extraction of
one or more of people, articles, or equipment at sea, which
comprises:

(a) providing a catamaran, which comprises:

(i) a pair of spaced-apart pontoons, each having a
forward tapered end and a rearward end;

(ii) an underwing affixed to said pontoons and
spanning therebetween, said underwing having a
forward end and a rearward end;

(iii) a platform pivotally connected to one or more of
said underwing forward end or said underwing
rearward end, and conforming to the pontoons at

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

3
their forward tapered end or rearward end,
respectively, said platform having a forward end;
and

(iv) a power assembly connected to said platform for
one or more of lowering or raising said platform
from a stowed position to a plurality of working
positions and for one or more of raising or
lowering said platform back to said stowed
position;

(b) one or more of lowering or raising said platform to a
position adjacent to said one or more people, articles, or
equipment; and

(c) a crewperson accessing said platform to accomplish said
one or more of insertion or extraction.

THE REFERENCES
Molotzak US 3,808,998 May 7, 1974
Quest US 4,161,795 Jul. 24, 1979
Yilmaz US 5,809,923 Sep. 22, 1998
Funk US 6,739,279 B2 May 25, 2004

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
4, 7-13, 15 and 16 over Yilmaz in view of Molotzak; claim 5 over Yilmaz in
view of Molotzak and Quest; and claims 6 and 14 over Yilmaz in view of
Molotzak and Funk.

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

4
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 16
Among claims 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 16 the Appellant argues only the
independent claims (1 and 9) (Br. 10-14). We therefore limit our discussion
to those claims. Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10-13, 15 and 16 stand or fall
with the independent claim from which they depend. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Yilmaz discloses a deep water ocean going vessel comprising a central
hull (11) and, hingedly connected thereto, two side hulls (12A, 12B) (col. 1,
ll. 10-13, 49-59). In deep water the side hulls are positioned vertically as
shown in figures 2, 2A and 2B to provide stability (col. 1, ll. 61-65). In
shallow water side hulls 12A and 12B are moved 90° from their vertical
position to a position beneath or beside central hull 11 as shown in figures
2C and 2D to reduce the vessel’s wet vertical depth and thereby permit the
vessel to maneuver to a beach to discharge or take on cargo (col. 1, l. 66 –
col. 2, l. 4). A hull extension (17) is rotatable along an axis (18) from a
position shown in figure 2 to a position shown in figure 2C to provide a
boarding and loading/unloading surface area (col. 3, ll. 43-45). An optional
extension surface (25) can be attached to hull extension 17 using rotational
connectors 24 as shown in figure 2D (col. 3, l. 60 – col. 4, l. 1).

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

5
Molotzak discloses a boat having a vertically rotatable wedge-shaped
bow plane (44) that stabilizes the boat and serves as an ice breaker or a
skimmer for removing oil or other floating debris (col. 1, ll. 7-14; col. 3, l.
47 – col. 4, l. 13). Bow plane 44 is vertically rotatable using various power
devices including mechanical apparatus (col. 2, ll. 56-66).
The Appellant argues that Yilmaz’s hull extension 17 in the position
shown in figure 2C is forward and outward of side hulls 12A and 12B and,
therefore, cannot be conforming to side hulls 12A and 12B at their forward
tapered end or rearward tapered end, respectively, as required by the
Appellant’s claims 1 and 9 (Br. 10-11).
The Appellant’s Specification does not define “conforming”. Hence,
we interpret that term according to the ordinary meanings of “conform”,
which include “[t]o bring into agreement or correspondence”.1 Yilmaz’s
hull extension 17 is sized and positioned such that it fits between the forward
tapered ends of side hulls 12A and 12B as shown in Yilmaz’s figures 2, 2A
and 2C and, therefore, is in agreement or correspondence with the side hulls.
Hull extension 17, therefore, conforms to those side hulls according to the
ordinary meanings of that term.
The Appellant argues that the claim 1 and 9 language is clear that the
platform conforms to the pontoon forward tapered end and, therefore, must
be flared to follow the taper of the pontoons (Br. 11).

1 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 297 (Riverside 1984).

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

6
The Appellant’s claims 1 and 9 do not require that the platform
conforms to the pontoons’ forward tapered ends. What those claims require
is that the platform conforms to the pontoons at their forward tapered end.
Yilmaz’s extension 17, due to its fit between side hulls 12A and 12B at their
forward tapered ends (figs. 2, 2A, 2B), is in agreement or correspondence
with the side hulls at their forward tapered ends and, therefore, conforms to
the side hulls at their forward tapered ends as required by the Appellant’s
claims 1 and 9.
The Appellant argues that once Yilmaz’s side hulls 12A and 12B have
been rotated for shallow water running there is no longer any forward
tapered pontoon (Br. 11).
When Yilmaz’s side hulls 12A and 12B are rotated to the side as
shown in figure 2C they still have forward tapered ends. Also, when side
hulls 12A and 12B are in the vertical position shown in Yilmaz’s figure 2,
hull extension 17 still fits between the side hulls and, therefore, is in
agreement or correspondence with the side hulls, i.e., conforms to the side
hulls.
The Appellant argues that Molotzak’s power system for platform 44
changes the angle of attack of platform 44 into the waves to provide stability
to the boat, and not to enable ingress or egress from the boat (Br. 10). The
Appellant “doubts that the skilled artisan would consult a forward bow plane
of a water piercer when designing an extension for accessing the shore”
(Br. 11).

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

7
The apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
consulted references such as Molotzak would have been to determine
alternative ways to raise and lower Yilmaz’s hull extension 17. The
Appellant does not explain, and it is not apparent, why the difference in
reasons for rotating Molotzak’s bow plane 44 and Yilmaz’s hull extension
17 would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that a power
device as disclosed by Molotzak would be unsuitable for rotating Yilmaz’s
hull extension 17.
Moreover, the Appellant acknowledges that “‘power’ for present
purposes is not limited to a motor, but also includes human power, such as,
for example, supplied by a crewman who can hand crank an assembly for
raising/lowering the platform and/or extension” (Br. 11). Thus, because
Yilmaz’s device (which appears to be a hinge) within axis of rotation 18
enables rotation of hull extension 17 by human power, it is a “power
assembly” as that term is used by the Appellant.
The Appellant argues that Yilmaz’s hull extension 17 is not designed
for accessing people and/or possessions in the water at sea (Br. 10, 12).
The Appellant’s claim 1 to a catamaran does not require any
capability of accessing people and/or possessions in the water at sea.
The Appellant’s claim 9 requires “[a] method for one or more of
insertion or extraction of one or more of people, articles, or equipment at
sea”. The Appellant’s Specification defines “sea” as “any body of water
upon which the inventive catamaran can operate, including, inter alia,
inland waterway, lake, ocean, sea, or like body of water” (Spec. 1:31 – 2:2).

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

8
The Appellant’s claim 11, which depends from claim 9, recites that “said
one or more of insertion or extraction of one or more of people, articles, or
equipment at sea, comprises one or more of into or from the water, or onto
or from the land, or from rock piles, rock jetties, or break walls ….”
Because Yilmaz’s coastal boarding and unloading of the deep water ocean
going vessel (col. 1, ll. 10-13) is “onto or from the land”, it takes place “at
sea” as that term is used by the Appellant.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 16.
Rejection of claim 5
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, requires that “said platform
carries railings.”
Quest discloses a ramp for allowing human ingress and egress to and
from a boat to land (col. 1, ll. 6-7). The ramp (20) comprises a plank (25)
and two hand rail assemblies (34) including a cylindrical hand rail
tube (180) substantially parallel to the plank, and front and rear cylindrical
brace tubes (182, 184) which support the ends of hand rail tube 180 (col. 5,
ll. 39-43; fig. 1).
The Appellant argues that “Quest, like every citation of record, does
not show a ramp useful at sea for accessing people and cargo that are in the
water” (Br. 14).
The Appellant’s argument is not well taken because the argued claim
limitation is not required by claim 5. Regardless, as discussed above with

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

9
respect to the rejection of claim 9, Yilmaz discloses a ramp useful for
accessing people and cargo “at sea”, as that term is used by the Appellant.
We therefore are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 5.
Rejection of claims 6 and 14
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, and claim 10, which depends
from claim 9, require that the platform carries an extension movable from a
stowed position to an extended position. Claims 6 and 14 which depend,
respectively, from claims 2 and 10, require that one or more of the platform
or extension are louvered, i.e., have apertures (Spec. 7:12-13).
Funk discloses “a temporary dock between the shore and a boat,
especially a pontoon or house boat, wherein the dock structure is lightweight
and easily handleable and portable” (col. 1, ll. 11-13). The dock’s floor (23)
“preferably is of expanded metal sheet aluminum having apertures 38
formed with serrated edges 40” (col. 2, ll. 42-45).
The Appellant argues that “the watercraft of Funk does not carry an
onboard platform of any description for loading/unloading people and cargo
from the shore, much less while the craft is at sea” (Br. 14).
The Appellant’s argument is not relevant to claim 6 which does not
require capability of loading/unloading people and cargo from the shore.
The Appellant’s claim 14, due to its indirect dependence from
claim 9, requires “[a] method for one or more of insertion or extraction of

Appeal 2008-0104
Application 10/850,999

10
one or more of people, articles, or equipment at sea”. As discussed above
regarding the rejection of claim 9, Yilmaz meets that claim requirement.
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claims 6 and 14.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 16
over Yilmaz in view of Molotzak, claim 5 over Yilmaz in view of Molotzak
and Quest, and claims 6 and 14 over Yilmaz in view of Molotzak and Funk
are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED

vsh

MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA
MUELLER-SMITH BUILDING
7700 RIVERS EDGE DRIVE
COLUMBUS OH 43235