LONE GULL HOLDINGS, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2020006653 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021)

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.
16/248,410 01/15/2019 Garth Alexander Sheldon-Coulson LONEG-98466 2077
24201 7590 10/22/2021
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1510
Long Beach, CA 90802
EXAMINER
KONG, SZE-HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 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):
docketla@fulpat.com
eOfficeAction2@fulpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GARTH ALEXANDER SHELDON-COULSON,
BRIAN LEE MOFFAT, and DANIEL WILLIAM PLACE

Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–30. We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “all
of the joint inventors”). “The real party of interest is the assignee LONE
GULL HOLDINGS, LTD.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

2
THE APPELLANT’S INVENTION
According to the Appellant, it discloses “mechanisms, apparatuses,
systems, and methods which permit rich, and currently under-utilized,
natural and renewable marine energy resources to be efficiently harvested
and put to good purpose, offsetting and potentially supplanting a portion of
the electrical power generated on land.” (Spec. ¶ 6.)
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A floating, renewable energy powered computing grid,
comprising:
a plurality of wave motion-to-electrical energy converters
translating together along a surface of water;
a propulsion system for translating the wave motion-to-
electrical energy converters, the propulsion system at least
partially driven by renewable energy;
a navigation control system controlling the propulsion
system;
a plurality of computational units disposed on the wave
motion-to-electrical energy converters and powered by
generated electrical energy;
a wireless data transfer bus adapted to relay
computational tasks to, and computational results from,
respective computational units; and
an antenna configured to transmit data from the
computational units to the wireless data transfer bus.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–7, 11, 15–24, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Finn3 and Gysin.4 (Final Act. 6.)

3 US 2015/0194813 A1, published July 9, 2015.
4 Liquid Robotics: Networking the Oceans with Robotics, available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20170401180810/https://
robotics.cioreview.com/vendor/2015/liquid_robotics.
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Kurabayashi.5 (Final Act. 13.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Dehlsen.6 (Final Act. 14.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Wyler.7 (Final Act. 15.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Griffith.8 (Final Act. 14.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Johnson.9 (Final Act. 17.)
VII. The Examiner rejects claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Finn, Gysin, and Herzig.10 (Final Act. 17.)
VIII. The Examiner rejects claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. (Final
Act. 5.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 25, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal, with the
rest of the claims on appeal depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims
App.) Independent claim 1 sets forth “[a] floating, renewable powered
computing grid,” independent claim 25 sets forth “[a] floating, self-powered,

5 US 2014/0173624 A1, published June 19, 2014.
6 US 2015/0321739 A1, published November 12, 2015.
7 US 2016/0170029 A1, published June 16, 2016.
8 “Long Term Autonomous Ocean Remote Sensing Utilizing the Wave
Glider,” Fall Meeting of The American Geophysical Union, December 2012.
9 US 2017/0293302 A1, published October 12, 2017.
10 US 2017/0215295 A1, published July 27, 2017.
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

4
radio telescope,” and independent claim 27 sets forth “[a] method of energy-
intensive calculations.” (Id.)
Rejection I
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–7, 11, 15–24, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Finn and Gysin. (See Final Act. 6.)
The Appellant argues only independent claim 1 with respect to this rejection.
(See Appeal Br. 5–8; see also Answer 10.)
Independent claim 1 sets forth a “floating” computing grid comprising
“a plurality of wave motion-to-electrical energy converters” and “a plurality
of computational units disposed on the wave motion-to-electrical energy
converters and powered by generated electrical energy.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Finn teaches a floating computing
grid comprising such converters and computational units. (See Final
Act. 6–7.)
Finn teaches “a water-based data center 100 containing a multitude of
interconnected computer systems 105 forming computer nodes in the data
center.” (Finn ¶ 15.) Each of Finn’s plural computer nodes “includes a
waterproof cabinet or container” (id.) that is “buoyant” (id. ¶ 17). A
“[p]latform 125 can be secured in water 120 by using an anchor” to
“maintain the position of the platform, and hence the data center 100 in the
water.” (Id.) Finn utilizes “wave energy from the movement or motion of
waves 130 forming in water 120 to power the interconnected computer
systems 105 in data center 100.” (Id. ¶ 19.)
Independent claim 1 sets forth that the floating computing grid
comprises “a propulsion system for translating the wave motion-to-electrical
energy converters” and “a navigation control system controlling the
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

5
propulsion system.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Gysin teaches that a floating data center, such as Finn’s floating data
center 100, can be equipped with such propulsion and navigation systems.
(See Final Act. 7–8.)
Gysin discloses a “fleet of unmanned autonomous ocean robots”
which “use the ocean’s endless supply of wave energy for propulsion.”
(Gysin 2.) Each robot includes a “‘float’” that “moves on the surface of the
ocean with waves,” a “wave engine” that transfers wave motion into
“propulsion,” and “software” that “control” the robots for “completion of
their mission.” (Id.) “The set-up also drives the collection, interpretation,
communication, and delivery of information to [a] command centre.” (Id.)
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of
the teachings of Gysin, to modify Finn’s data center 100 to comprise “self-
contained propulsion and navigation systems.” (Final Act. 8.) In other
words, instead of Finn’s buoyant computer containers 105 translating
together because they are held in place by an anchored platform vessel, they
would translate together because they each have self-contained propulsion
and navigation systems. The Examiner explains that this modification
would enable Finn’s data center 100 to function without an “anchor” and/or
without “the use of the additional vessels.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that “[n]o known prior art system teaches a
floating computing grid comprising a self-propelled wave-to-electrical
energy system that powers the computing grid and further propels the energy
converters.” (Appeal Br. 6.) The Appellant argues that Finn only teaches a
“moored” structure, specifically an “anchored” structure that “is immersed
in water to cool the system.” (Id. at 7.) And the Appellant argues that the
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

6
Examiner “does not address the fact that the prior art is silent as to a
plurality of wave motion-to-electrical energy converters translating together
along a surface of the water.” (Id.)
We are unpersuaded by these arguments because they are not aligned
with the Examiner’s rejection, which is based upon what the references
collectively teach to one of ordinary skill in the art. When Finn’s data
center 100 is modified in view of the teachings of Gysin in the proposed
manner, it would comprise a self-propelled energy system, it would no
longer be anchored,11 and its wave energy converters would translate
together along a surface of the water.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner “does not explain how Finn
would then communicate its computational data once modified.” (Appeal
Br. 8.) According to the Appellant, “the current Finn system uses an
anchored platform adjacent the structure to pass the data.” (Id.) However,
as pointed out by the Examiner (see Answer 10), Finn expressly teaches
“wireless communications.” (Finn ¶ 16.) Moreover, Gysin teaches a “set
up” that drives the “communication and delivery of information to [a]
command center.” (Gysin 2.) Indeed, Gysin teaches “a fully autonomous

11 We agree with the Examiner that Finn does not teach away from an
unmoored structure (see Answer 9) and to the extent that the Appellant
argues to the contrary (see Appeal Br. 7), we are unpersuaded by this
argument. Insofar as Finn only describes a structure that is moored, there is
no insistence that such mooring be maintained despite the advantages gained
by Gysin’s teachings. And, as noted by the Examiner, Finn teaches that
“those skilled in the art will appreciate that other buoyant containers, rigs,
vessels can be configured to maintain the interconnected computer systems
in a particular location.” (Finn ¶ 17.)
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

7
floating server rack” that was “built as the Amazon Web Services of the
open ocean.” (Id. at 1.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner “does not attempt to reconcile
the clear distinctions between the massive computing structure of Finn and
the surfboard vessel of Gysin.” (Appeal Br. 8.) According to the Appellant,
“[t]here is nothing in Gysin that would suggest the articulating wings would
be effective in moving the structure of Finn.” (Id. at 7–8.) However, in the
Examiner’s proposed combination of the prior art, Finn’s buoyant computer
containers 105 translate together because each have self-contained
propulsion and navigation systems. (See Final Act. 8.)
Consequently, the record adequately establishes that the floating
computer grid set forth in independent claim 1 would have been obvious
over the combined teachings of Finn and Gysin. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As indicated above, the Appellant argues only independent claim 1
with respect to this rejection. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of 4–7, 11, 15–24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejections II–VII
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 8–10, 12–14, and 28–30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Finn in view of Gysin and other
secondary references. (See Final Act. 13–19.) The Appellant does not argue
these rejections. (See Appeal Br. 5–8; see also Answer 10.) Thus, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–24 and 28–30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

8
Rejection VIII
The Examiner rejects claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement. (See Final Act. 5.) The
Appellant only argues independent claim 25 with respect to this rejection.
(See Appeal Br. 3–5; see also Reply Br. 2–3.)
Independent claim 25 sets forth “[a] floating, self-powered, radio
telescope” comprising “a plurality of wave motion-to-electrical energy
converters translating together along a surface of water” and “a plurality of
radio antennas and controllers disposed on respective wave motion-to-
electrical energy converters for recording and time stamping electromagnetic
radiation.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner determines that the
Specification “does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the
claimed radio telescope.” (Final Act. 5.)
The Examiner explains that the Specification “does not enable one
skilled in the art to make and/or use the claimed radio telescope because it
does not teach how to solve the problem of accounting for movement of the
energy converters, e.g., tilting and heaving due to wave motion and other
environmental conditions.” (Final Act. 5.) As pointed out by the Examiner,
“wave motion” is “required to power” the claimed converters which
translate together along a surface of water. (Answer 5.) And the
Specification is clear that this surface of water can be in “remote, deep-
water, high-energy areas of the sea” (Spec. ¶ 7) that are characterized by
“vigorous surface currents and winds” (id. ¶ 35).
The Examiner also explains that “[d]ue to the movement” of the
claimed energy converters, alignment of each antenna will differ from the
alignment of other antennas.” (Final Act. 5.) Thus, “some, if not all, of the
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

9
antennas will be aligned in different directions.” (Answer 5.) In other
words, “at least one, and possibly all of the antennas, would not even be
pointed at the object to be measured.” (Final Act. 4.)
Significantly, the Examiner provides evidence in this regard.
Particularly, the Examiner relies upon Ryle12 as evidence of considerations
that must be addressed when a plurality of radio antennas are used for
recording electromagnetic radiation. Ryle “illustrate[s] the components of a
radio telescope array and explains that a radio telescope array operates by
correlating the signals from individual antennas.” (Final Act. 3, see also
Ryle 226.) Ryle also “teach[es] where considerations in the design and
operation of a telescope array include compensating for even minute
environmental factors such as tides, wind, and the stability of the
foundations.” (Final Act. 3, see also Ryle 227–228.) We agree with the
Examiner that Ryle provides “evidence and foundation” on why the
Specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to address these
considerations without undue experimentation. (Answer 6.)
The Appellant argues that the Specification discloses that “each of the
present invention’s disclosed floating antennas is effectively fixed” because
they combined with “high frequency measurements of position and
orientation.” (Appeal Br. 4.) The Specification does say that each of the
Appellant’s energy harvesting devices can have a “sensor” that is “capable
of determining and specifying the geospatial position and orientation of each
respective energy harvesting device.” (Spec. ¶ 73.) However, the

12 M. Ryle & B. Elsmore, Astrometry with the 5-km Radio Telescope, 164
MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOC’Y 223–
242 (October 1973).
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

10
Specification does not elaborate on how this determining and specifying
would “correct for drifts of the sensors that would occur over time.”
(Answer 4.) And “[d]ue to this drift, the estimates of position derived from
the sensor readings will become increasingly inaccurate.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that the Specification discloses “a type of radio
telescope that detects, and produces images of, astronomical objects.”
(Appeal Br. 4.) The Specification does describe an embodiment in which
the Appellant’s energy harvesting devices “simultaneously records radio
signals received via its individual phased array antenna from outer space.”
(Spec. ¶ 462, see also Fig. 40.) Indeed, this embodiment is supposedly “able
to resolve celestial bodies such as black holes with much greater fidelity
than distributed radio telescopes of the prior art.” (Id. ¶ 462.) However, a
radio telescope “that is going to be used to observe distant objects such as
black holes” would seem to require “a high degree of precision in not only
the positions and orientations of the antennas, but also the alignments of the
antennas toward the object to be measured.” (Answer 5.) The Specification
does not elaborate on how this precision alignment would be achieved with
devices affected by different wave motions.
The Appellant argues that the enablement analysis does not take into
consideration the Wands factors. (See Appeal Br. 4, see also Reply Br. 2–3.)
However, the Specification evidences that independent claim 25 is broad
enough to cover a radio telescope situated “in the midst of vigorous surface
currents and winds” (Spec. ¶ 35) which can still “resolve” black holes better
than prior art telescopes (id. ¶ 462). The Specification, in conjunction with
the references of record, evidences the unconventional nature of the
invention, the state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

11
art, the unpredictability of the intended marine venues, the lack of direction/
detail provided by the inventor, the nonexistence of working examples, and
the quantity of experimentation needed. (See, e.g., Spec. Abstract, ¶¶ 5, 7,
35, 72–76, 105, 250, 455–462, Fig. 40, Gysin, Ryle, Griffith, Dehlsen,
Wyler, etc.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the analysis
appropriately addresses the Wands factors, and the evidence, as a whole,
demonstrates non-enablement. (See Advisory Action 2.)
Consequently, the record adequately establishes that the radio
telescope set forth in independent claim 25 is not enabled by the
Specification. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
As indicated above, the Appellant argues only independent claim 25
with respect to this rejection. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 11,
15–24, 27
103 Finn, Gysin 1, 4–7, 11,
15–24, 27

2, 3, 14 103 Finn, Gysin,
Kurabayashi
2, 3, 14
8, 9 103 Finn, Gysin,
Dehlsen
8, 9
10 103 Finn, Gysin,
Wyler
10
12, 13 103 Finn, Gysin,
Griffith
12, 13
28, 29 103 Finn, Gysin,
Johnson
28, 29
Appeal 2020-006653
Application 16/248,410

12
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
30 103 Finn, Gysin,
Herzig
30
25, 26 112(a) Enablement 25, 26
Overall
Outcome
1–30

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED