Owain Jones

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

13146013 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
13/146,013 09/14/2011 Owain Jones LATCHWAYS3 1343
6980 7590 11/04/2019
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
600 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
EXAMINER
CHIN-SHUE, ALVIN CONSTANTINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
jim.schutz@troutmansanders.com
patents@troutmansanders.com
ryan.schneider@troutmansanders.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte OWAIN JONES
__________

Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 8–10, 12–14, 17, and 21–24. 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 Latchways
PLC. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A safety block for use in a fall arrest system, the safety
block comprising:
an attachment device for attaching the safety block to a
support structure;
a safety line drum mounted for rotation within a housing
and upon which a safety line is to be wound;
a bob sheath in proximity to an end of the safety line;
a speed responsive engagement mechanism responsive to
the speed of rotation of the drum, which is activated above a
predetermined rotational speed of the drum to engage the drum
or a component connected to the drum in order to arrest rotation
of the drum;
an energy absorber device arranged to be deployed upon
the application of a predetermined tension in the safety line to
absorb energy applied to the line;
a rewinding or re-spooling mechanism arranged to act to
rotate the drum to rewind the safety line onto the drum in the
absence of sufficient tension in the safety line to pay out the line;
and
an exit arrangement for the safety line exiting the housing;
wherein the exit arrangement is arranged to permit the
safety line to exit the housing over a range of different exit
positions to the side of a line between the attachment device and
the axis of the safety line drum;
wherein the exit arrangement comprises an elongate slot
that serves as a guide to raise the exit position of the safety line
as the end of the safety line having the bob sheath is retracted
into the block;
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

3
wherein the bob sheath is engagable with the elongate slot
such that the bob sheath is guided upwardly along the elongate
slot to its uppermost limit under the influence of the rewinding
or re-spooling mechanism in the absence of any load on the
safety line and further guided downwardly along the elongate
slot when load is applied to the safety line; and
wherein when the rotation of the drum is arrested by the
speed responsive engagement mechanism the safety block is re-
orientated such that the safety line extends downwardly from
directly below the attachment device.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 8–10, 14, 17, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ostrobrod (GB 1,463,589; published Feb. 2,
1977), Casebolt (US 2015/0041253 A1; published Feb. 12, 2015), either
Jones (US 2010/0236867 A1; published Sept. 23, 2010) or Gastine (US
4,286,690; issued Sept. 1, 1981), and either McDonald (US 310,603; issued
Jan. 13, 1885) or MacFarlane (US 4,088,201; issued May 9, 1978).
II. Claims 12, 13, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ostrobrod, Casebolt, either Jones or Gastine, either
McDonald or MacFarlane, and Hung (US 6,595,495 B1; issued July 22,
2003).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of claims 3, 8–10, 14, 17,
and 21–23 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See Br.
7–17. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3, 8–10, 14,
17, and 21–23 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

4
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Ostrobrod discloses a safety block comprising the various components as
claimed, including an attachment device for attaching the safety block to a
support structure, a safety line drum (i.e., spring return drum 3) mounted for
rotation within housing 1 and upon which a safety line (i.e., cable 4) is to be
wound, and an exit arrangement for the safety line exiting the housing. Non-
Final Act. 2–3 (citing Ostrobrod Fig. 2); see also Ostrobrod Fig. 1. The
Examiner acknowledges that Ostrobrod fails to disclose that
the exit arrangement comprises an elongate slot that serves as a
guide to raise the exit position of the safety line as an end of the
safety line is retracted into the block and is arranged to permit
the safety line to exit the housing over a range of different exit
positions to the side of a line between the attachment device
[and] the axis of the safety line drum.
Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, finds that McDonald discloses a
housing (i.e., casing E) “with a slotted exit arrangement” (i.e., opening I) to
“permit the safety line to exit the housing over a range of different exit
positions.” Id. at 4; see also McDonald Figs. 1, 2. Alternatively, the
Examiner finds that MacFarlane discloses housing 14 with an attachment
device (i.e., safety hook 50) and “a slotted exit arrangement” (i.e., angular
slot 44) to “permit the safety line to exit the housing over a range of different
exit positions to the side of a line between the attachment device and the axis
of the safety line drum.” Non-Final Act. 4; see also MacFarlane Figs. 1, 2.
The Examiner further finds that “a vertical force on the line due to the
weight of the user would re-orient the housing such that the safety line
extends downwardly below the attachment device.” Non-Final Act. 4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the safety
block of Ostrobrod to “comprise a slotted exit arrangement, as taught by
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

5
either McDonald or MacFarlane, since it would have provided the
predictable results of allowing his safety line to exit the housing over a range
of different exit positions.” Id. at 4–6 (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH &
Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).2
Appellant contends that “there is no disclosure in [McDonald] that the
opening at reference sign I is elongate” because “[a]n elongate slot would
typically be understood to be a slot which is long in relation to its width” and
McDonald’s description “makes no reference to the width or length of the
opening.” Br. 11. However, the Examiner correctly responds, as seen in the
Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of McDonald, that “the opening (I) of
McDonald is shown to have a longer length than its width wherein the round
diameter of the rope (J) has a larger clearance above and below the rope than
at the sides of the rope in the opening (I).” Ans. 4. Put another way, the
Examiner explains that McDonald discloses an elongated slot because
opening I is long in relation to its width as per Appellant’s own definition of
a slot. See Br. 11. Indeed, a preponderance of the evidence, namely, Figure
1 of McDonald, discloses an exit arrangement comprising an elongate slot,
as claimed, because opening I is sized larger than the cross-sectional area of
rope J such that rope J can move within opening I. See McDonald Fig. 1.
See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]hings patent
drawings show clearly are [not] to be disregarded.”).

2 The Examiner relies on Casebolt, Jones, and Gastine for disclosing
limitations other than those discussed above. See Non-Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

6
Appellant also contends that McDonald “does not and is not designed
to permit the safety line to exit the housing over a range of different exit
positions ‘to the side of a line between the attachment device and the axis of
the safety line drum.’” Br. 11. Appellant argues that “[i]n [McDonald],
only a single exit position is described and no reference is given to a range
of exit positions or any advantages offered by a range of different exit
positions.” Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument, however, does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that “a vertical force on the line due to the weight
of the user would re-orient the housing such that the safety line extends
downwardly below the attachment device,” and that McDonald’s opening I
allows rope J to exit the housing over a range of different exit positions to
the side of a line between the attachment device and the axis of the safety
line drum. Non-Final Act. 4. Indeed, Figure 1 of McDonald discloses a
plurality of positions where rope J can exit by virtue of the larger sized
opening I in comparison to the cross-sectional area of rope J. Further,
Appellant has not provided support for concluding that McDonald only
discloses a single exit position. See Ans. 5 (wherein the Examiner responds
that “[n]owhere in the [description, does McDonald] state[] that there is only
a single exit position as stated by Appellant”).
Appellant next contends that as McDonald “is directed at the problem
of ‘control[ling] the speed of descent,’ it is important to constrain the
descent in as many ways as possible” and “[e]nabling the safety rope to
leave the circular casing in a number of ways is entirely at odds with this
aim.” Br. 12.
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

7
This argument is unpersuasive in that McDonald’s disclosure of
controlling speed of descent does not negate the disclosure of rope J exiting
at different positions within opening I of McDonald’s housing, as discussed
supra. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A]ttorney
argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness”).
Appellant contends that in the Office Action, there is no “discussion
or even a mention of the limitation that the elongate slot ‘serves as a guide to
raise the exit position of the safety line as the end of the safety line having
the bob sheath is retracted into the block.’” Br. 12.
First, we note that in regard to the limitation, “the exit arrangement
comprises an elongate slot that serves as a guide to raise the exit position of
the safety line as the end of the safety line having the bob sheath is retracted
into the block,” the Examiner has pointed to structures from the cited prior
art that correspond to the claimed structures such as the “exit arrangement”
“elongate slot,” “safety line,” “bob sheath,” and “block.” See Non-Final
Act. 2–4. Notably, claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the recitation “that
serves as a guide to raise the exit position of the safety line as the end of the
safety line having the bob sheath is retracted into the block” is a functional
limitation. As such, Appellant’s contention is based on intended use of the
recited “elongate slot.” By virtue of the cross-sectional area of the
McDonald’s rope J being smaller than opening I and that the rope J exits the
housing via opening I, McDonald’s opening I is therefore capable of
“serv[ing] as a guide to raise the exit position of the safety line as the end of
the safety line having the bob sheath is retracted into the block,” as claimed.
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

8
Concerning the MacFarlane reference, Appellant argues that its
written description “provides no disclosure of the slot 44 being elongate and
no reference to any difference between the length and the width of the slot
44 to suggest it is elongate.” Br. 13.
Viewing the angular slot 44 shown in MacFarlane’s Figure 2 and
observing the width of housing 14 shown in Figure 1, an ordinary artisan
would find that the length of slot 44 is greater than its width. See
MacFarlane Figs. 1, 2. As such, we do not agree with Appellant that
MacFarlane fails to disclose an elongated slot.
Appellant contends that MacFarlane’s stated goal “is to produce a
predetermined rate of decent (column 1, lines 8 to 11), and in order to
accomplish that goal, it would be important that the cable exits the housing
at a fixed position.” Br. 14. Appellant submits that “[w]ere the cable of
M[a]cFarlane . . . permitted to exit over a range of positions, i[t] would
subvert the stated goal as the movement of the exit position of the line [and]
would result in fluctuations of the rate of descent.” Id.; see also id. at 15
(arguing the lack of disclosure from MacFarlane concerning the limitation
“the exit arrangement is arranged to permit the safety line to exit the housing
over a range of different exit positions”).
First, to the extent that Appellant is arguing that MacFarlane’s cable
26 can only exit housing 14 at a fixed position rather than a range of
different exit positions, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons
explained supra concerning McDonald’s opening I. More specifically,
because MacFarlane’s Figure 2 shows that the cross-sectional area of cable
26 is smaller than the size of angular slot 44, cable 26 can therefore exit at
different positions within angular slot 44 when there is a change in load and
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

9
cable 26 sways or moves within angular slot 26. See Non-Final Act. 4.
Again, controlling the rate of descent does not negate MacFarlane’s
disclosure of the claimed exit arrangement.
Concerning MacFarlane’s disclosure, Appellant similarly argues that
there is no “discussion or even a mention of the limitation that the elongate
slot ‘serves as a guide to raise the exit position of the safety line as the end
of the safety line having the bob sheath is retracted into the block.’” Br. 15.
This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to McDonald’s disclosure. More specifically, the recitation “serves
as a guide to raise the exit position” is a functional limitation rather than a
structural limitation, and MacFarlane’s angular slot 44 is capable of this
function for the reasons noted supra.
Appellant contends that an ordinary artisan would not combine the
teachings of the cited prior art because Ostrobrod, Casebolt, and Jones “are
disclosures directed at systems for arresting a user’s fall” whereas
MacFarlane, McDonald, and Gastine disclose “fire escape systems” which
“do not arrest a user’s fall.” Br. 15–16.
To the extent that Appellant is arguing the references are non-
analogous art, we do not agree.
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellant’s field of
endeavor is a fall arrest system safety device. The devices of all the cited
references are intended to attach to a person and provide protection from
Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

10
injuries that would otherwise result in a fall. Thus, we find that all the cited
references are in this same field of endeavor as the present application.
Additionally, Appellant’s Specification discloses a “safety device” (Title,
Abstract) that prevents a person “from suffering injury as a result of falling”
at a height. Spec. 1:7–8. Because the devices of all the cited references are
intended to attach to a person and provide protection from injuries that
would otherwise result in a fall, we also find that all the cited art are
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Appellant is
involved. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Ostrobrod, Casebolt, either Jones or Gastine, and
either McDonald or MacFarlane, as prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 8–10,
14, 17, and 21–23.

Rejection II
Appellant does not provide any substantive argument specifically for
the rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, and 24 and appears to rely on
arguments presented for independent claims 1 and 22. Br. 7–17.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 12, 13, and 24 is sustained for the
reasons discussed supra.

Appeal 2018-009103
Application 13/146,013

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8–10,
14, 17, 21–23
103 Ostrobrod,
Casebolt, either
Jones or Gastine,
either McDonald
or MacFarlane
1, 3, 8–10,
14, 17,
21–23

12, 13, 24 103 Ostrobrod,
Casebolt, either
Jones or Gastine,
either McDonald
or MacFarlane,
Hung
12, 13, 24
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 8–10,
12–14, 17,
21–24

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