Ex Parte DE LA CHEVROTIERE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14204735 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/204,735 03/11/2014 Alexandre DE LA CHEVROTIERE
23483 7590 11/01/2018
WILMERHALE/BOSTON
60 STATE STREET
BOSTON, MA 02109
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0290494.00135US2 4446
EXAMINER
HARTMANN, GARY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3671
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
whipusptopairs@wilmerhale.com
teresa.maia@wilmerhale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDRE DE LA CHEVROTIERE
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
93-98, 101, 102, 106-111, 122-126, 129, 130, 132, and 134--136. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 "The real party in interest is the inventor and applicant, namely
ALEXANDRE DE LA CHEVROTIERE." App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to structural assemblies for constructing
bridges and other structures. Claim 93, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
93. A structural assembly comprising:
a) an elongated member defining an internal space;
b) a plurality of framing members connected to the elongated
member at a plurality of pin connection nodes, each pin
connection node comprising a pin interconnecting the elongated
member, a first one of the framing members, and a second one
of the framing members; and
c) a tamperproof arrangement blocking access to the pin.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gilb
Kennedy
us 4,069,635
us 4,589,693
REJECTI0N2
Jan.24, 1978
May 20, 1986
Claims 93-98, 101, 102, 106-111, 122-126, 129, 130, 132, and 134--
136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilb and
Kennedy. Final Act. 2.
2 Claims 99, 100, 103-105, 127, 128, 131, and 133 stand objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated by the Examiner
to be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
OPINION
The Examiner correctly found Gilb discloses the basic structure of
claim 93 except for the tamperproof arrangement, for which the Examiner
cites Kennedy. Appellant's first contention is that Kennedy is non-
analogous art. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner correctly found that Kennedy's
disclosure involving "a reusable tamperproof lock" would have been
reasonably pertinent to Appellant's stated problem of bridges "being
susceptible to vandalism, tampering, and accidental disassembly." Ans. 2-3;
Spec. 2: 1-7. Although references must be considered as a whole, we agree
with the Examiner that the fact that Kennedy's tamper-proofing involves
protecting a screw for a hasp-type lock would not have diminished its
pertinence from the perspective of one skilled in the art concerned with
protecting similar connecting members, such as pins, even if those pins were
being used in other contexts such as the truss of Gilb. "[F]amiliar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007); see also, In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F. 3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("an
inventor considering a hinge and latch mechanism for portable computers
would naturally look to references employing other "housings, hinges,
latches, springs, etc.," which in that case came from areas such as "a desktop
telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing machine
cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part housing for storing audio
cassettes.") (discussing In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481-2 (Fed. Cir.
1994)). The problems encountered by Appellant were problems that were
not unique to bridges or structural assemblies.
3
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
Appellant's next argument pointing out that Kennedy does not block
access to a pin (App. Br. 9) fails to consider the combined teachings of Gilb
and Kennedy and the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Non-
obviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon the teachings of a combination of
references. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). It is the incorporation of the tamper resistant cap plug 48 into Gilb
that yields the claimed subject matter including "blocking access to the pin."
It is of no moment that Kennedy alone does not teach this limitation in its
entirety. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is
expressly suggested in any one of the references, but whether the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art
in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant next argues that the Examiner's proposed modification of
incorporating Kennedy's plug into Gilb would be counter to the teachings of
Gilb, in particular Gilb's teaching that the highest load value for the joints
occurs when Gilb's pins 48 extend, along with bores 41, 42 from edge 46 to
edge 47 of the chords 1, 2. App. Br. 10 (citing Gilb, col. 4, 11. 10-12); see
also Gilb, Fig. 2. The Examiner responds by correctly pointing out that
Gilb' s pins 48 do not carry the primary loads and Gilb expressly suggests
they could be made relatively short:
While the pin contributes somewhat to the value of the
device, it is only significant for use as the means for providing
the one-third code required negative and reverse loading
provision. For all practical purposes, if it were not for this reason,
a relatively very short pin could be inserted in the prepared hole
to the point where the two ends were bearing on the drawn hole
4
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
sidewalls of the clevis, with the unused portion of the hole either
left as is or possibly plugged with a do well [sic]. The clevis itself
carries the primary loads in all directions except negative along
the axis of the chord.
Gilb, col. 5, 11. 46-56. Thus, the proposed modification essentially involves
replacing a non-structural element such as the dowel described above with
Kennedy's plug 48 which would not be structurally detrimental to Gilb's
truss.
Appellant also contends that the presence of Kennedy's plug would
hinder the desirable easy removability of Gilb's pins 48. App. Br. 12 (citing
Gilb, col. 6, 11. 7-11). There does not appear to be any basis for Appellant's
assertion that removing a plug of the type taught by Kennedy would be more
difficult than the drilling process contemplated by Gilb to access the pins for
removal or that the same drilling process could not be used. See id.
Kennedy does not detail the specifics of the adhesive used but must
contemplate some removal because Kennedy provides a coloring to show
evidence of tampering. One skilled in the art must be presumed to know
how to provide a secure fit between a plug and bore, with adhesive or
otherwise, that provides the requisite level of tamper-proofing while also
providing the necessary removability by an authorized worker. See, e.g., In
re Sovish, 769 F. 2d 738, 743 (CCPA 1985).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 93.
Turning to claim 95, Appellant contends, "it is completely unclear
how Kennedy's plug 48, which the Examiner appears to consider to be a
'barrier', would be located in that 'internal space' of Gilb's chord 1." App.
Br. 13-14. As the Examiner correctly points out, this argument is not
commensurate with claim 95 and appears to be based on a misreading of the
5
Appeal 2018-001832
Application 14/204,735
claim language. Ans. 4. According to claim 95, only the "barrier-
supporting portion" must be "located in the internal space," not the "barrier
blocking portion." Thus, the entirety of Kennedy's plug 48 need not be in
an internal space: the portion (unlabeled) disposed in the counterbore 27, a
"barrier supporting portion," being disposed in the internal space suffices to
satisfy the language of claim 95. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 95.
Appellant's remaining arguments (App. Br. 15-21) merely repeat the
arguments addressed above but note the context of independent claim 109 is
"[a] bridge." We agree with the Examiner that it is notoriously old and well-
known that trusses can be used to construct bridges, and the insertion of this
limitation does not defeat analogousness for the same reasons expressed
above. Final Act. 3. For this reason, and those discussed above, we are not
apprised of error regarding the rejection of any of Appellant's remaining
claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is affirmed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6