Ex Parte Baugh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2013

11649872 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2013)

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.
11/649,872 01/05/2007 Benton Frederick Baugh 6991
60193 7590 05/03/2013
BENTON F. BAUGH
19210 Cohen Green Lane
HOUSTON, TX 77094
EXAMINER
MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENTON FREDERICK BAUGH
____________

Appeal 2011-002929
Application 11/649,872
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Benton Frederick Baugh (Appellant) seeks our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-002929
Application 11/649,872

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method of “installing drag
reducing fairings on vertical pipes in the ocean to reduce the side load on the
pipes due to ocean currents.” Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. The method of installing fairings on a vertical pipe to
reduce the fluid flow drag associated with said vertical pipe in
the currents in an ocean, comprising:
providing a multiplicity of fairing sections,
providing a rotatable connection between said fairing
sections, and
supporting said connected fairing sections independently
supported and axially slidable of said vertical pipe.
Independent claim 11 is also directed to a method of installing fairing
sections on a vertical pipe and is similar to claim 1 and further recites “such
that said vertical pipe can be partially removed from said ocean without
raising said fairings.”
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Masters (US 7,337,742 B1; iss. Mar. 4, 2008); and
2. Claims 3-10 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Masters and Habermaas (US 3,020,107; iss. Feb. 6, 1962).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that Masters discloses the method of
independent claims 1 and 11, including the step of “supporting said
connected fairing sections independently supported and axially slidable of
said vertical pipe.” Ans. 3-4 (citing Masters, figs. 9-14; col. 6, ll. 26-28; and
Appeal 2011-002929
Application 11/649,872

3
col. 8, ll. 11-24); id. at 7 (“as seen in Figures 9 through 14, the fairing
sections are devoid of any structure limiting their axial mobility along the
vertical pipe.”).
Appellant argues that claims 1 and 11 are not anticipated by Masters
because Masters does not disclose the step of “supporting said connecting
fairing sections independently supported and axially slidable of said vertical
pipe.” Br. 10-11. Appellant argues that “the fairing sections [of Masters]
are prevented from slidable movement by the vertical pipe by collars 24 &
48 as are shown in figure 17.”1 Id. at 10. Appellant further argues that “the
axially slidable feature is not discussed” in the portion of Masters relied on
by the Examiner. Id.
As to the embodiment of Figures 9-14, Masters discloses fairings 16A
each formed from a cylindrical shell 20N having opposing fins 22N that
define a longitudinal gap G. Masters, col. 7, ll. 11-14; figs. 9, 13. Masters
discloses that the gap G provides an opening that allows for placement of the
shell 20N around a riser. Id. at col. 7, ll. 17-19. Masters discloses that
fairing 16A also includes a flange 24 at its top 26 and bottom 28 edge,
creating a top bearing surface 26N and a bottom bearing surface 28N. Id. at
col. 7, ll. 19-22; figs. 9-13. Masters discloses that fins 22N include first and
second connectors 78a,b that secure the fins 22N together in order to attach
them around a riser. Id. at col. 7, ll. 38-42; figs. 9-14. Masters discloses that
the shell 20N “is rotatably mounted about a substantially cylindrical
element, such as the riser 14, and rotates around the riser 14 to match the

1 The Examiner did not rely on the embodiment of Figure 17 of Masters
having collars 48 as the basis for the anticipation rejection. Ans. 7. Thus,
we do not address the embodiment of Figure 17 in this decision.
Appeal 2011-002929
Application 11/649,872

4
fins 22, 22N with the direction of the current.” Id. at col. 8, col. 13-16.
While Masters discloses mounting the fairings about the riser such that they
are rotatable about the riser, Masters is silent, with respect to the
embodiment relied upon by the Examiner (reflected in Figures 9-14), as to
how the fairing segments are supported relative to the riser 14. Thus, while
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the fairing sections shown in
Figures 9-14 “are devoid of any structure limiting their axial mobility along
the vertical pipe,” such lack of disclosure of any means for supporting the
fairings relative to the riser is not adequate evidence of a disclosure of
supporting the fairings independently and axially slidable of the riser, as
called for in claims 1 and 11.
The Examiner points to the disclosure in column 8, lines 11-24 of
Masters to support the anticipation rejection. Id. We fail to see, and the
Examiner has not adequately explained, how the disclosure in this cited
portion of Masters, which describes that the fairings are rotatably mounted
around the riser and are configured to allow for fluid to reach the bearing
face of the shell, adequately supports the Examiner’s finding that the fairings
are supported independently and axially slidable of the riser. As such, we
find that the Examiner’s determination that the fairing segments 16A are
supported independently and axially slidable of the riser is not supported by
a preponderance of the evidence.
The rejection of dependent claims 2 and 12 as anticipated by Masters
and the rejection of dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 as unpatentable over
Masters and Habermaas suffer the same deficiency as discussed supra with
regard to the findings as to the disclosure of Masters. Ans. 4-5.
Appeal 2011-002929
Application 11/649,872

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.

REVERSED

Klh