Robert Edgar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

15485867 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

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.
15/485,867 04/12/2017 Robert Edgar SK12683 4125
44088 7590 05/20/2020
KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW
P. O. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
EXAMINER
CHU, KATHERINE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
jason@kaufholdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT EDGAR
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–6, and 9–14. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Robert Edgar.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to arresting devices for rapidly disabling a
moving vehicle. Spec. 1:1–2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
1. A vehicle arresting device comprising:
a plurality of first wires, said first wires comprising
braided steel;
a plurality of second wires, said second wired [sic]
comprising braided steel, each said second wire being coupled to
each said first wire such that said first wires and said second
wires define a grid having plurality of intersections;
a plurality of spikes, said spikes being barbed, each said
spike being coupled to and extending from a respective said
intersection, each of said spikes extending perpendicularly from
a face of said grid in a first direction;
a plurality of connectors, each said connector being
coupled to a respective said first wire and a respective said
second wire at a respective said intersection to couple said
respective said second wire to said respective said first wire, each
said connector comprising a bottom tube coupled to a top tube
such that said top tube and said bottom tube are perpendicularly
positioned; and
wherein said spikes are positioned on said intersections
such that said spikes are configured for penetrating and coupling
to one or more tires of a vehicle passing over said spikes, such
that said first wires and said second wires are rotationally
compelled to entangle rotational components of the vehicle for
arresting the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
3
Name Reference Date
Mosebach US 2,238,779 Apr. 15, 1941
Horton US 6,409,420 B1 June 25, 2002

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4–6, and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Horton and Mosebach.

OPINION
Horton and Mosebach
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1, 4–6, and 9–14 as a
group. Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and
claims 4–6, and 9–14 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Horton discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, including connectors connected to first and second wires,
but does not disclose “the details of the connector.”2 Final Act. 2–3.
Addressing this deficiency in Horton, the Examiner turns to Mosebach,
which, the Examiner finds, discloses “the use of a connector (Figures 1 and
5) at the intersections of a wire net and . . . that the connector comprises a
bottom tube (13) coupled (welded) to a top tube (other 13) such that said top
tube and said bottom tube are perpendicularly positioned.” Id. at 3. The
Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to replace the connectors of Horton with those of Mosebach
as a simple substitution of parts. Id. at 3–4; see also Ans. 5.

2 The Examiner takes Official Notice that wires comprising braided steel are
old and well-known. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
4
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification would
render the vehicle barrier disclosed by Horton unsuitable for its intended
use. Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that Horton’s vehicle
barrier includes two arrays of spikes positioned on opposite ends of the
barrier. Id. Appellant contends that the spikes of each array extend in
opposite directions such that, when one end of Horton’s barrier is folded
over on the remainder of the barrier, all spikes extend upwardly. Id.
Appellant asserts that this folding function in Horton allows a particular
manner of binding a vehicle’s tires and “is a basic principle of operation of
the device as taught.” Id. Based on this assertion, Appellant concludes
“[t]hus, modification to meet the limitations of claim 1 would alter the basic
principle of operation for Horton and such modification cannot properly be
deemed obvious.” Id.
In response, the Examiner notes Appellant’s discussion of the function
of the two arrays of spikes in Horton’s barrier and finds “having those little
perpendicular tubes [disclosed in Figure 5 of Mosebach] at the intersections
would not inhibit any of that,” and “Appellant has not provided any evidence
to support Appellant’s speculative conclusion.” Ans. 3. The Examiner
explains that, in the proposed modification to the barrier of Horton, “[t]he
perpendicular tubes only go at the intersections of the gridded net, not over
the entire net.” Id.
The Examiner further explains that the connectors disclosed by
Mosebach need not be positioned at every intersection within the barrier
disclosed by Horton, and, therefore, even if the presence of a connector
inhibited folding, this effect would not extend over the entire barrier. Id.at
4–5.
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
5
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s proposed
modification to the barrier taught by Horton would render this device
unsuitable for its intended use. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that
there is no apparent reason implementation of connectors as disclosed by
Mosebach would inhibit any folding function in Horton’s barrier. Appellant
provides no objective evidence or technical argument in support of finding
that it would.3 Appellant merely describes the operation of the device
disclosed in Horton and comes to the unsupported conclusion that this
operation would be impeded by the addition of connectors as taught by
Mosebach. See Appeal Br. 5–6.
Appellant next argues “[t]here is still nothing in the collective
teaching of the references to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the two, except for the teaching of the present application.” Appeal Br. 6.
As an ancillary argument, Appellant states, “Mosebach teaches only a
structure for the grid and has no teaching whatsoever regarding any spikes.
Thus, Mosebach does not resolve or render obvious any modifications
necessary to meet the limitations of claim 1.” Id. at 7.
Appellant’s arguments attacking the Examiner’s reasoning for the
proposed modification to Horton’s barrier do not address the Examiner’s
statement that implementing Mosebach’s connectors in Horton’s device
would have been a matter of simple substitution. See Ans. 5; Final Act. 3–4.
Using sleeves 13 in place of Horton’s existing connections would have been
the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417.

3Mosebach discloses that its net, which includes the connectors at issue here,
is “rolled for stowing”. Mosebach 2:13–17 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-006556
Application 15/485,867
6
In the Examiner’s proposed modification, the connection of two cables
together in Horton’s barrier would occur in a similar manner to one in which
the cables disclosed by Mosebach are connected. Appellant’s argument does
not speak to the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Final Office Action
and Examiner’s Answer, and, accordingly, Appellant does not apprise us of
Examiner error on this point.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 9–14.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 9–14 103 Horton, Mosebach 1, 4–6, 9–
14

Overall
Outcome
1, 4–6, 9–
14

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