Ex Parte Wragg

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2003

09217496 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS S. WRAGG
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 24,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a small boat having sections that can be
separated and stacked to facilitate storage or transportation, including portability, of the
boat (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix
to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Aimonetti 2,514,303 July 4, 1950
Cook 3,381,322 May 7, 1968
Morgan 3,983,830 Oct. 5, 1976
Claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Morgan.
Claims 1 to 12, 14 and 16 to 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cook in view of Morgan.
Claims 15 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Morgan in view of Aimonetti.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed March 17, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20, filed February 28, 2002) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 4
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
All the claims under appeal recite in one manner or another the following
limitations: (1) pairs of opposed terminal ends of a rigid members are disposed in facing
relationships on respective adjacent hull sections; (2) at least one rigid elongated linear
shank member; (3) each said shank member spanning between a pair of facing
terminal ends and cooperating therewith to form a releasable rigid, load bearing
coupling between said adjacent sections; and (4) that cooperation between each
respective shank member and pair of facing terminal ends for all said hull sections
couples said hull sections into a rigid, load bearing unitary boat.
Morgan's invention relates to barges and, more particularly, to barges comprised
of a plurality of a modular float sections, assembled by drawing them together from a
spaced array, and releasably secured one to the other through separable alignment
pins and post tensioning cables. Figures 1 and 2 show a modular barge 10 which
includes a plurality of floating modules 12 and alignment bodies or pins 14 assembled
in an array and linked by elongated filaments in the form of cables threaded
therethrough. The modules 12 are watertight structures, each having a generally
rectangular transverse cross-sectional periphery defining a deck surface 18, a bottom
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 5
surface 19, opposite side walls 20 and end walls 21. Each side wall 20 is constructed
with a plurality of spaced recesses or sockets 22 therealong for assembly and structural
purposes.
As shown most clearly in Figure 4, the alignment pin 14 is a unitary structure
formed in a generally elliptoid configuration with outwardly tapering end portions of
complementary shape and size to the sockets 22 for relatively loose fitting mating
engagement therewith. The alignment pin 14 is preferably formed of cast steel or
other suitably rigid materials in a tubular, watertight construction. A pair of tapered
portions 24 generally frustoconical in shape extend outwardly the center portion 25 of
the pin 14 to form this elliptoid shape. The alignment pin 14 further includes a
longitudinal passageway 26 which functions as a tubular chord in the pin 14 providing
longitudinal rigidity and providing a sleeve for the through positioning of tension
members, such as cables used in the barge assembly. The alignment pin 14 is
releasable secured in socket 22 by the fastening of a latch 58. Morgan teaches
(column 10, lines 46-50) that pins 14 carry minimal to zero loads in the assembled,
post-tensioned structure, alleviating possible damage to this alignment and assembly
element under heavy barge loading.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 6
1 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
In the anticipation rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner (answer, p. 3)
determined that the claimed shank member was readable on1 the pins 14 of Morgan.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-9) that the claimed shanks and the pins 14 of Morgan
have exactly opposite, structures, functions and assembly and accordingly the claimed
shank member is not met by the pins 14 of Morgan.
In our view, the claimed shank member is not readable on the pins 14 of
Morgan. In that regard, the pins 14 of Morgan do not span between a pair of facing
terminal ends of respective modules 12 and cooperating therewith to form a releasable
rigid, load bearing coupling between adjacent modules.
For the reasons set forth above the subject matter of claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and
16 to 24 is not anticipated by Morgan. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 7
The obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 24
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Aimonetti.
We have reviewed the reference to Aimonetti additionally applied in the rejection
of claims 15 and 24 (dependent on claims 14 and 18, respectively) but find nothing
therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Morgan discussed above regarding
claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and 16 to 24. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 12, 14 and 16 to 23
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 12, 14 and 16 to 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Morgan.
In this rejection, the examiner (answer, p. 4) ascertained that Cook failed to
teach the claimed shank member. The examiner then concluded that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to provide Cook's boat with shank members as suggested by the pins of Morgan.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 8
The appellant's argue (brief, pp. 11-14) that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree. In that regard, even if the boat of Cook
were modified to include pins as taught by Morgan this would not result in the claimed
subject matter for the reasons set forth above in out treatment of the anticipation
rejection base on Morgan. That is, the pins 14 of Morgan when place on Cook's boat
would not form a releasable rigid, load bearing coupling between adjacent hull sections.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 12, 14 and 16 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 9
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 5, 8, 13, 14 and
16 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 12 and 14 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-2154
Application No. 09/217,496
Page 10
BROWN, MARTIN, HALLER & MCCLAIN LLP
1660 UNION STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2926
JVN/jg