Sorkin, Felix

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

15382284 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
15/382,284 12/16/2016 Felix Sorkin GTI.097002 7370
100183 7590 01/03/2020
Adolph Locklar
Michael Locklar
4615 S.W. Freeway
Suite 630
Houston, TX 77027
EXAMINER
LAUX, JESSICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
docket@adolphlocklar.com
docket@al-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FELIX SORKIN
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 23.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Felix
Sorkin. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 12–22 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “an anchor used in post-tensioning concrete.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and is reproduced below.
1. An anchor for a post-tensioning tendon comprising:
an anchor body, the anchor body including a coupler extension
having an interior surface;
an insert mechanically coupled to the interior surface of the
coupler extension;
a coupler body, the coupler body mechanically coupled to the
insert; and
a coupler nut, the coupler nut coupled to the coupler body.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1–3, 5–11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hayes3 and Sorkin ’558.4 Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hayes, Sorkin ’558, and Sorkin ’894.5 Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hayes discloses the claimed anchor body
including a coupler extension, a coupler body, and a coupler nut. Final Act.
2 (citing Hayes reference nos. 30, 34, 54, 64). The Examiner finds that
Hayes does not expressly disclose the claimed insert mechanically coupled
to the interior surface of the coupler extension and the coupler body

3 US 7,174,685 B2, issued February 13, 2007 (“Hayes”).
4 US 5,072,558, issued December 17, 1991 (“Sorkin ’558”).
5 US 6,023,894, issued February 15, 2000 (“Sorkin ’894”).
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

3
mechanically coupled to the insert. Id. The Examiner finds that Sorkin ’558
discloses “an insert (38) mechanically coupled to the coupler extension and
having coupling features for mechanically coupling to the coupler body.”
Id. at 3. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
“modify the anchor of Hayes to have an insert as taught by Sorkin [’558],
with coupling features (where Hayes teaches having coupling features for
coupling to the coupler body) for coupling to the coupler body, to achieve
the predictable result of a heat shield/fire resistant connection.” Id.
Appellant focuses its argument on the Examiner’s stated reasons for
the combination, and argues that “neither reference teaches or suggests
combining the reference’s features with additional elements.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant also argues that the “divergent teachings” of the references would
not suggest “that a component from one reference should be combined with
components from the other reference.” Id. at 8. Appellant further contends
that the rationale for the proposed combination lacks “explicit support” and
“is a classic example of hindsight.” Reply Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner characterizes Appellant’s argument as
improperly attacking the references in isolation rather than the proposed
combination. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner also points out that merely because
Hayes and Sorkin ’558 do not teach the same structure, that does not
establish that they are divergent. Id. at 4. The Examiner also takes the
position that the references need not provide an “explicit teaching of a
motivation to combine.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim
1. Notably, Appellant does not dispute that once Hayes and Sorkin ’558 are
combined, the resulting combination includes all of the limitations of claim
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

4
1. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Instead, Appellant focuses exclusively on the
rationale for the proposed combination. That rationale, while brief, provides
a rational underpinning for the proposed combination. See Final Act. 3. The
Examiner first notes that adding Sorkin ’558’s insert with coupling features
makes sense given the already-present coupling features of Hayes. Id.
Hayes supports this rationale because it discloses various mechanical
coupling means to couple its parts together. See Hayes Figs. 5–7, 3:52–4:39
(describing various “threadforms” for coupling parts together). The
Examiner also points to a predictable result achieved by the combination—
“a heat shield/fire resistant connection.” This advantageous result flows
from heat shield 38 in Sorkin ’558, which the Examiner finds corresponds to
the claimed insert. See Sorkin ’558, 5:67–6:5; Final Act. 3. We discern no
error in the Examiner’s reliance on the heat shield properties of the insert in
Sorkin ’558 as one of the advantages that supports the addition of the insert
to the structure in Hayes. The Examiner correctly notes that the support for
a combination need not be explicitly stated in any of the prior art references,
as Appellant suggests throughout its briefing. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br.
3; see also KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”).
Here, while Appellant argues that the reasoning is too “conclusory,”
Appellant does not contest persuasively key aspects of the Examiner’s
rationale—that the heat shield properties of the insert in Sorkin ’558 would
be advantageous in Hayes, and the addition of such an insert would lead to
predictable results.
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

5
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant
presents arguments against the rejection of claim 11, which we address
below. Appellant does not raise additional arguments against the rejection
of claims 2–10 and 23, and we sustain the rejection of those claims for the
same reasons as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7–9.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further requires “wherein the
insert is formed from at least one of steel, aluminum, or zinc.” Appeal Br.
13 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Sorkin ’558 discloses a “metal”
material for its insert, and Hayes discloses specific types of metal, including
steel, for materials used in its anchor. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to “modify the material/metal of
the insert . . . to be steel, aluminum or zinc since it has been held to be
within the general skill of a working in the art to select a known material on
the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design
choice.” Id. at 4–5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on the cited portions of
Hayes fails to acknowledge that those passages “relate to the tendon and
sheath and not to the anchor or any component thereof.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant also argues that the claimed insert “is not embedded in concrete”
as in the prior art, and “is exposed to corrosion and heat risks that are
different from those to which the tendon and sheath” of the prior art are
exposed. Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner finds that “clearly Hayes discloses
materials suitable for use in a post tension anchor for reasons including at
least corrosion resistance” and that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

6
understand the materials used in Hayes to be suitable for such an
installation.” Ans. 4–5.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim
11. The Examiner correctly finds that Sorkin ’558 already discloses a metal
insert. See Final Act. 4; Sorkin ’558, 6:14–15 (“The heat shield is made of a
heat resistant material, such as a metal material.”). While Sorkin ’558 did
not specify the type of metal, the Examiner correctly finds that Hayes
discloses that steel provides corrosion resistance properties that are helpful
in this environment. Final Act. 4; Hayes, 2:59–61 (disclosing use of “carbon
steel” for sheath), 5:3–12 (describing “superior anti-corrosion protection”
provided by the invention that includes sheaths made of “metals” or other
materials). Appellant correctly points out that Hayes does not disclose a
material for the anchor or the insert, but Appellant fails to establish that the
anti-corrosion advantages of steel as used in Hayes, given the very similar
post-tensioning concrete environments of the references, would not apply to
the metal insert of Sorkin ’558.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 and 23.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–11,
23
103 Hayes, Sorkin ’558 1–3, 5–11,
23

4 103 Hayes, Sorkin ’558,
Sorkin ’894
4
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 23
Appeal 2019-004021
Application 15/382,284

7
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED