Hin Chiu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2019

14977184 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019)

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.
14/977,184 12/21/2015 Hin Chiu 0023799-521US2 4738
22904 7590 10/16/2019
LOCKE LORD LLP
600 TRAVIS SUITE 2800
HOUSTON, TX 77002-3095
EXAMINER
LAMBE, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2019 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HIN CHIU
____________________

Appeal 2019-002329
Application 14/977,1841
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention relates “to the design layout of
equipment on an offshore well intervention monohull vessel,” which may be

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Helix Energy
Solutions Group, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002329
Application 14/977,184

2
used “for the transport, deployment, and retrieval of well intervention subsea
equipment.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as representative of the
appealed claims.
1. A well intervention monohull vessel comprising:
a tower type open derrick disposed on a deck of the vessel;
and
one single point land out capable of being connected to the
open derrick.

REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (US 6,871,609 B2, iss. Mar. 29, 2005)
(hereinafter “Roodenburg”) and Angman (US 7,654,313 B2, iss. Feb. 2,
2010).

ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “one
single point land out capable of being connected to the open derrick.” Br.,
Claims App. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error
because neither Roodenburg nor Angman discloses one single point land
out, and, in fact, both references teach away from connecting one single
point land out to a derrick. See Br. 3–7. In reply to Appellant’s arguments,
the Examiner determines that Angman discloses connecting one single point
land out to a derrick, and that Roodenburg does not teach away from using
such a land out. See, e.g., Answer 3–8. Based on our review of the record,
Appeal 2019-002329
Application 14/977,184

3
for the following reasons, we agree with the Examiner. Thus, we sustain the
obviousness rejection.
We begin by determining what is meant by the claimed “single point
land out.” In the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief, Appellant references paragraph 30 of the Specification, as
well as Appellant’s Figure 3, for the concise explanation of claim 1’s subject
matter, consistent with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iii). See
Br. 2. Appellant’s paragraph 30 states, in relevant part, “[t]he present
invention eliminates the requirement for riser tensioners 13[, as shown, for
example, in prior art Figures 1 and 2,] and the correspondingly the [sic] riser
telescopic joint[,] by being able to have a single point land out 106 shown in
F[igure] 3 from a Multi-Purpose Tower (MPT) or equivalent open
derrick 102.” Spec. ¶ 30. This paragraph does not otherwise describe the
structure of a single point land out. Based on our review, it does not appear
that Appellant’s Specification further describes the structure of the single
point land out. Thus, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs
by interpreting the claimed single point land out to include a tension
controlling member extending between two components, where the member
is connected at a single point at each end. Br. 5–7; Answer 3.
The Examiner’s rejection relies on Roodenburg to disclose an open
derrick (to which non-single-point land outs connect), and on Angman to
disclose single point land outs connected to a derrick (that is not a tower
type open derrick). See, e.g., Final Action 2. According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious to use Angman’s single point land out in place of
Roodenburg’s land out, “as a simple substitution of one known land out . . .
for another.” Id. Further, although Angman’s Figure 2 discloses two (2)
Appeal 2019-002329
Application 14/977,184

4
single point land outs, according to the Examiner, Angman expressly
discloses that only one single point land out may be connected to a derrick.
Answer 6 (citation to Angman omitted). Appellant does not show error in
any of these determinations.
As discussed above, Appellant does not show that the Examiner errs
by relying on Angman to disclose a single point land out—i.e., a tension
controlling member extending between two components, where the member
is connected at a single point at each end. Further, although we carefully
considered Appellant’s argument (see Br. 5–7), Appellant does not persuade
us that the Examiner errs by interpreting Angman’s written narrative as
disclosing that only one single point land out may be connected to a derrick.
As such, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Angman fails to
disclose, and instead teaches away from, connecting one single point land
out to a derrick. See id. We also do not agree with Appellant that
Roodenburg teaches away from connecting one single point land out to a
derrick. See id. at 4–5. More specifically, neither the fact that Roodenburg
discloses a non-single-point land out, nor the fact that Roodenburg discloses
more than one land out, persuades us that Roodenburg teaches away from
modifying Roodenburg as the Examiner proposes. See Answer 4–5.
Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellant does not persuade us that the
Examiner errs in determining that it would have been obvious to combine
Roodenburg and Angman to disclose independent claim 1’s recitations,
including one single point land out. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 12, and the rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–18 that
Appeal 2019-002329
Application 14/977,184

5
depend from the independent claims, the rejection of which Appellant does
not argue separately from claim 1’s rejection.

CONCLUSION
We SUSTAIN the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–18.
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).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103 Roodenburg,
Angman
1–18
Overall Outcome

1–18

AFFIRMED