Ex Parte MckisicDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201613538419 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/538,419 06/29/2012 Aubra D. MCKISIC 091078.1699 8507 5073 7590 12/02/2016 RAKFR ROTTST T P EXAMINER 2001 ROSS AVENUE SMITH, JASON C SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2016 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AUBRA D. MCKISIC Appeal 2014-010004 Application 13/538,419 Technology Center 3600 Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Aubra D. McKisic (“Appellant”) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated November 8, 2013 (“Final Act.”), and as further explained in the Advisory Action, dated January 13, 2014 (“Adv. Act.”), rejecting claims 1—9 and 11—22.1 The Examiner objects to claim 10 but indicates that it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Trinity Industries, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2014-010004 Application 13/538,419 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to supports or gussets for tank car nozzles and tank cars including such gussets for reinforcing nozzles.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 1. A tank car, comprising: a body comprising a wall; a nozzle opening formed in the wall, the nozzle comprising a projecting portion extending from the wall; a reinforcing pad disposed on the wall, adjacent to the nozzle, a gusset configured to support the nozzle, the gusset comprising: a portion of a cylinder having a predetermined radius, the portion of the cylinder comprising a first edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the nozzle and a second edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the reinforcing pad, such that an axis of the portion of the cylinder intersects an axis of the nozzle at a predetermined angle, wherein the predetermined radius and the predetermined angle are configured such that an arc of the portion of the cylinder extends less than approximately 180 degrees. 2 Appeal 2014-010004 Application 13/538,419 REJECTION Claims 1—9 and 11—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dalrymple ’554 (US 2006/0185554 Al, published Aug. 24, 2006) and Dalrymple ’719 (US 5,467,719, issued Nov. 21, 1995). DISCUSSION Independent claim 1 recites “a gusset configured to support the nozzle, the gusset comprising: a portion of a cylinder having a predetermined radius, the portion of the cylinder comprising a first edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the nozzle and a second edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the reinforcing pad” and independent claim 16 recites “[a] gusset for a nozzle of a tank car . . . comprising: a portion of a cylinder having a predetermined radius, the portion of the cylinder comprising a first edge configured to be coupled to a circumferential surface of the nozzle and a second edge configured to be coupled to a circumferential surface of the reinforcing pad.” Br. 18, 21 (Claims App.). To address these limitations in the Rejection, the Examiner identified angled external reinforcement 250 in Dalrymple ’554 as the “gusset.” See Final Act. 2—3 (citing Dalrymple ’554, Fig. 4). Appellant contends that angled external reinforcement 250 “does not describe a portion of a cylinder,” but rather, “is a portion of a solid figure of which one end is circle, and the other end is a point, much like a portion of a cone.” Br. 12. According to Appellant, the term “cylinder” describes a solid figure defined by “a straight line moving parallel to itself along a curved surface having a fixed radius.” Id. (citing the Oxford English Dictionary). Appellant argues that the surface of angled external reinforcement 250 “does 3 Appeal 2014-010004 Application 13/538,419 not disclose, teach, or suggest a straight line moving parallel to itself as required by the definition of a cylinder” and that, instead, “a straight line running along the surface of the conical gusset 250 . . . would intersect a straight line defining any other portion of the surface of conical gusset 250.” Id. at 13. The Examiner responds, “since [AJppellant is only claiming ‘a portion’, then the circle of the gusset of Dalrymple ’554 meets this claimed limitation.” Ans. 2. The Examiner also states, “[AJppellant does not specify what ‘a portion’ consists of, so therefore it has been interpreted that the top portion of gusset (250) of Dalrymple [’554] meets this limitation.” Id. Here, the Examiner has identified angled external reinforcement 250 as the recited “gusset” and has identified “the circle” (or “the top portion”) of angled external reinforcement 250 as the recited “portion of a cylinder.” See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2.2 Even assuming that the identified structures satisfy the requirement for a “gusset” comprising “a portion of a cylinder,” claims 1 and 16 recite additional requirements for “the portion of the cylinder.” Specifically, claim 1 recites “the portion of the cylinder comprising a first edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the nozzle and a second edge disposed adjacent to a surface of the reinforcing pad” and claim 16 recites “the portion of the cylinder comprising a first edge configured to be coupled to a circumferential surface of the nozzle and a second edge configured to be coupled to a circumferential surface of the reinforcing pad.” 2 We understand “the circle” (or “the top portion”) of angled external reinforcement 250 as the portion of angled external reinforcement 250 adjacent cylinder portion 232 of protective housing 238. See Dalrymple ’554, Figs. 3, 4. 4 Appeal 2014-010004 Application 13/538,419 Br. 18, 21 (Claims App.). Here, the Examiner has not shown that “the circle” (or “the top portion”) of angled external reinforcement 250—i.e., the identified “portion of a cylinder”—satisfies these additional requirements. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 16, and also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—9 and 11—15 (which depend from claim 1) or claims 17—22 (which depend from claim 16). DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1—9 and 11—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation