12013840 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

Ex Parte Lantier

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2013

12013840 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 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. 12/013,840 01/14/2008 Richard W. Lantier SDSI-1 9390 22827 7590 03/27/2013 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3672 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2013 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 RICHARD W. LANTIER ____________ Appeal 2011-002243 Application 12/013,840 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 16, and 18-26. Claims 2, 9-15, and 17 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-002243 Application 12/013,840 2 Rejections The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meeusen (US 4,316,426, iss. Feb. 23, 1982) and Johnson (US 6,505,444 B1, iss. Jan. 14, 2003). Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, and Daudet (US 2002/0134036 A1, pub. Sept. 26, 2002). Claims 7, 8, 16, 18, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, and Hey (US 2005/0016438 A1, pub. Jan. 27, 2005). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, Hey and Daudet. Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 16, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A dock system comprising: a. a platform, said platform including i. a frame member, said frame member having a top surface and defining an opening; ii. a cross-member inserted into said opening, said cross-member having a dimension approximately equal to said opening; and iii. a stringer, said stringer having first and second surfaces, wherein said first surface of said stringer is proximate to said cross- member, and said second surface of said Appeal 2011-002243 Application 12/013,840 3 stringer is approximately coplanar with said top surface of said frame member. Claim 16 calls for a dock system having the identical platform as recited in claim 1 and claim 21 calls for a dock system similar to claim 1. OPINION The Examiner finds that Meeusen discloses a dock system comprising a frame member (longitudinal beam 1) having a top surface and defining an opening, and a cross member (transverse beam 2) inserted into the opening, but the cross member 2 does not have a dimension approximately equal to the opening. See Ans. 3-4; Meeusen, figs. 1, 2; col. 2, ll. 4-6. The Examiner also finds that “Johnson (fig. 3) discloses a frame member (56) wherein the cross member (16) has a dimension approximately equal to the opening.” Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Meeusen to have the cross member with a dimension approximately the size of the opening to provide additional support.” Id. (italics added). Furthermore, the Examiner adds that the modification would result in the addition of Johnson’s downward stringer, i.e., Johnson’s downwardly projection spaced finger(s) 58, rather than increasing the size of Meeusen’s cross member 2. Ans. 7-8. The Appellant persuasively contends that the Examiner’s rejection fails to articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness because Meeusen and Johnson each “teach[] different structure for supporting a cross member with a frame member than the presently claimed invention.” Reply Br. 3-4 (italics added). Appeal 2011-002243 Application 12/013,840 4 As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Johnson’s bottom rib(s) 16 corresponds to the claimed cross member. Accordingly, for the Examiner’s rejection to be adequately supported, Johnson would have to teach that the addition of fingers 58 would provide additional support to bottom ribs 16. At the outset, we note that fingers 58 do not touch bottom ribs 16 directly, and as such, fingers 58 do not support bottom ribs 16 directly. Johnson, fig. 3. As pointed out by the Appellant, fingers 58 hook between top ribs 12. App. Br. 11; Johnson, col. 3, ll. 24-27. Top ribs 12 are connected to bottom ribs 16. Johnson, col. 2, ll. 18-27. Thus, fingers 58 provide support to bottom ribs 16 indirectly through hooking top ribs 12. Applying this teaching to Meeusen’s frame and cross-member for the purpose of additional support as explained by the Examiner is ineffectual because Meeusen lacks an intermediary member similar to top rib(s) 12. See App. Br. 11-12; Meeusen, fig. 2. Accordingly, due to the differences in structure between Meeusen and Johnson, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not supported with rational underpinning. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, and their dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 22, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Meeusen and Johnson is not sustained. The remaining rejections based on Meeusen and Johnson in combination with Daudet and/or Hey rely on the same reasoning discussed above which lacks rational underpinning. See also Ans. 5-6. As such, we cannot sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claims 4 and 23 as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, and Daudet; claims 7, 8, 16, 18, 20, and 26 as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, and Hey; and claim 19 as unpatentable over Meeusen, Johnson, Hey, and Daudet. Appeal 2011-002243 Application 12/013,840 5 DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 16, and 18-26. REVERSED babc