Ex Parte DE LA CHEVROTIEREDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201814204735 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation