10899361 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Baugh

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 25, 2012

10899361 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

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. 10/899,361 07/26/2004 Benton F. Baugh 6199 60193 7590 07/25/2012 BENTON F. BAUGH 19210 Cohen Green Lane HOUSTON, TX 77094 EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3671 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BENTON F. BAUGH ____________________ Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method “for building structures and drilling oil and gas wells in arctic, inaccessible or environmentally sensitive locations without disturbing the ground surface as is done in conventional land drilling operations.” Spec. 1:3-5. Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims on appeal, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of supporting a platform section for above the surface of the earth comprising: landing said platform section a distance above said surface of said earth on one or more first supports depending from said platform, drilling one or more holes in the earth, inserting one or more second supports into said holes, placing a filler material between said one or more holes and said one or more second supports, and allowing said filler materials to solidify. REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: 1. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 3 2. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaster (US 6,745,852 B2; iss. Jun. 8, 2004) and Johnson (US 5,050,356; iss. Sep. 24, 1991). 1 OPINION Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite As currently presented, claim 11 depends from claim 11. The Examiner found that claim 11 is indefinite because claim 11 depends upon itself so that the scope of claim 11 is unclear. Ans. 4. Appellant asserts that claim 11 should depend from claim 7 as claim 10 and claim 12 do. Br. 11. The fact that claims 10 and 12 depend from claim 7 does not demonstrate that claim 11 must also depend from claim 7. Appellant could have chosen to make claim 11 depend from a claim other than claim 7, such as independent claim 1 or claim 10. Further, and more significantly, such argument is unpersuasive in that it does not cogently identify or explain an error in the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 over Kadaster and Johnson The Examiner found that Kadaster discloses a method of supporting a platform section (platform module 13) that includes the step of landing the platform section (platform module 13) on one or more first supports (legs 15) depending from the platform as called for in independent claim 1. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner found that Kadaster’s method includes such a 1 The Examiner specifically states that because the scope of claim 11 is unclear, it “has not been further treated on the merits,” and therefore, it is not subject to the second ground of rejection. See Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 4 step when reusing a platform at an alternative worksite. Ans. 6 (citing Kadaster, col. 5, l. 66 - col. 6, l. 36; col. 7, ll. 38-47). Kadaster discloses that a group of platform sections (modules 13) may be positioned and lifted with respect to a plurality of supports (legs 15) by sequentially: affixing blank inserts 47 or leg engaging inserts 492 to the corners of the platform sections (modules 13), inserting supports (legs 15) through the blank inserts 47 or leg engaging inserts 49, inserting the supports (legs 15) in the ground, and raising the interconnected platform sections (modules 13) on the supports (legs 15) with lifting mechanisms 55. Col. 5, ll. 46-58 (note use of the sequencing term “then”); figs. 5B, 6A, 6B. Thus, this method does not include landing a platform section on one or more supports depending from the platform section as called for in claim 1. Kadaster does not explicitly disclose a method of reusing a platform that includes the step of landing the platform section (platform modules 13) on one or more supports (legs 15) as called for in independent claim 1. Kadaster, passim. Rather, Kadaster discloses that the supports (legs 15n) “may include a separable connection 71 which allows the lower end of leg 15n to be left in the ground when the platform is removed from the site.” Col. 6, ll. 13-16; fig. 7A. Such disclosure does not support the Examiner’s finding in two respects. First, Kadaster discloses only that the platform (module 13) is removed, and does not disclose that the platform is reused at an alternate site. Second, and more significantly, Kadaster does not disclose that the supports (legs 15n) remain connected to the platform section (platform module 13) when the platform is removed from the site (and 2 Tubular leg hole 43 is an alternative to blank inserts 47 or leg inserts 49. Col. 5, ll. 31-32; fig. 5A. Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 5 presumably relocated to another site). It is equally possible that the platform sections (modules 13) are removed from the site without the supports (legs 15n) attached, and then the supports (legs 15n) are separated at separable connection 71 leaving the lower end of the support (leg 15n) in the ground. In this manner, Kadaster’s platform (module 13) and supports (the upper end of legs 15n) could be utilized at an alternate location in accordance with the installation procedure discussed supra. See col. 5, ll. 46-58; figs. 5B, 6A, 6B. In light of these disclosures, we cannot find that it is more likely than not that Kadaster’s method includes the step of landing a platform section (platform module 13) on one or more first supports (legs 15n) depending from the platform as called for in independent claim 1.3 See Br. 8-9. Independent claim 7 is directed to a method of supporting a platform section that includes the step of “engaging a first set of supports depending from said platform with the surface of the earth.” Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 7 suffers from the same shortcoming as that of claim 1. See Ans. 5-6. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-17. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. 3 Johnson is not relied upon for a modification related to this finding. See Ans. 5. Appeal 2010-004518 Application 10/899,361 6 We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaster and Johnson. AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls