Ex Parte Foley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

13230455 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
13/230,455 09/12/2011 KEVIN J. FOLEY NSD 2010-021 8495
26353 7590 02/15/2018
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C
EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
DAVIS, SHARON M
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
guerral @ wes tinghou se. com
spadacjc @ westinghouse.com
coldrerj @ westinghouse.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN J. FOLEY
Appeal 2017-002133
Application 13/230,455
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, and 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Smith (US 7,543,512 B2, iss. June 9, 2009) and Holshausen (US 5,824,957,
iss. Oct. 20, 1998).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The rejection of claim 3 was withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2017-002133
Application 13/230,455
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a tool with an aperture in a connection
element of a rotation apparatus. Spec., Abstract. A cable from a testing
element passes through the aperture which thereby “avoids the need to use
slip rings or similar devices to permit the testing element to [be] carried on a
pivotable and rotatable structure.” Id. The tool being “for delivery of a
testing element to a limited access location within a nuclear containment.”
Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim.
1. An elongated tool for delivering a testing element of a testing
apparatus to a limited access location within a nuclear
containment, the testing apparatus further having a connecter and
having a cable extending between the testing element and the
connecter, the tool comprising:
a frame apparatus comprising an elongated first frame
portion and an elongated second frame portion;
a pivot apparatus disposed between the first and second
frame portions and being structured to permit one of the first
frame portion and the second frame portion to be pivotable with
respect to the other of the first frame portion and the second
frame portion;
a rotation apparatus disposed between the first and second
frame portions and connected with the pivot apparatus, the
rotation apparatus being structured to permit at least one of the
first frame portion and the second frame portion to be rotatable
about its axis of elongation with respect to the other of the first
frame portion and the second frame portion; and
the rotation apparatus comprising a connection element
having an axis of rotation and being rotatably coupled to the at
least one of the first frame portion and the second frame portion
and being situated adjacent the pivot apparatus, the connection
element having an aperture formed generally centrally therein
that is structured to receive the cable therein, the aperture being
of an annular shape that extends about the axis of rotation along
at least one-half the circumference of the connection element.
2
Appeal 2017-002133
Application 13/230,455
OPINION
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 together. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches an “elongated tool for
delivering a testing element,” including a connection element with an
aperture to receive a cable. Final Act. 3^4. However, the Examiner
determines Smith does not teach “the connection element having an axis of
rotation” or “being rotatably coupled to the at least one of the first [and
second] frame portion . . . and an [annular] aperture . . . that extends about
the axis of rotation along at least one-half the circumference of the
connection element.” Id. The Examiner finds that Holshausen teaches a
connection element with these features. Id.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to combine the connection element of Holshausen with the
testing element of Smith for the predictable purpose of guiding
an electrical cable through a connection formation configured to
permit adjacent elements (the frame portions of Smith) to rotate
relative to one another (Holshausen column 1, lines 31—49).
Such a combination is an example of substituting one known
element for another to achieve predictable results.
Id.
Appellant argues that Holshausen’s “cable-carrying containment
device (23). . . provides only pivoting articulation of the containment device
and . . . provides no relative rotation” as required by the connection element
of claim 1. Br. 3. Appellant states that this is true because relative rotation
would make the cable access slits unusable as the slits would be misaligned.
Id. at 4. Appellant argues that when Holshausen states “‘each element can
articulate relative to the other through the maximum arc of movement in a
3
Appeal 2017-002133
Application 13/230,455
fall [sic., understood to mean ‘full’] 360°’, this refers merely to pivoting
movement.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Holshausen col. 7:12—14).
Appellant also argues that the lack of rotation negates the Examiner’s stated
reason to combine. Id. at 5.
The cited portion of Holshausen is discussing cable carrying elements
80 that connect with a ball 92 and socket 88 joint as illustrated in Figures
15—18. The sentence before the portion quoted by Appellant states that
“[s]ince the head 92 is spherical in shape the elements are in no way
constrained as to the direction in which they are able to articulate relative to
each other.” Holshausen col. 7:9-12 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 5.
Appellant’s argument appears to clearly misstate the teachings of
Holshausen. Holshausen explicitly teaches that there are no constraints on
the ball and socket, thus allowing relative pivoting and rotation between the
cable carrying elements. Thus, Appellant’s argument that Holshausen’s
cable carrying elements are incapable of relative rotation has no basis in fact.
As a result, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1.
Appellant also argues that “Holshausen fails to disclose an annular­
shaped aperture ‘that extends about the axis of rotation along at least one-
half the circumference of the connection element’ as is recited in Claim 1.”
Br. 5. Appellant states “[w]hile one potentially could argue that Fig. 12 of
Holshausen seems to suggest a single annular aperture, Holshausen makes
clear . . . that the bracket (54) ‘divides the interior into two passages 55.’” M
(emphasis in original) (citing Holshausen col. 5: 46-48). However, we do
not have to reach the question of whether Holshausen suggests one or two
annular apertures. The Examiner finds that claim 1 requires an annular
4
Appeal 2017-002133
Application 13/230,455
“aperture extending ‘at least one-half of the circumference,’” and that each
of Holshausen’s annular passages 55 “extends for exactly one-half of the
circumference.” Ans. 6. As a result, independent of whether Holshausen
suggests one or two annular passages, the annular passages 55 teach the
relevant limitation of claim 1. Thus, we are not informed of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 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
5