Ex Parte Pan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2013

11865732 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHAN-PING PAN
____________

Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chan-Ping Pan (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5-7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
l. A fire-prevention structure for buildings,
comprising:
a first fire-prevention district, having at least a steel-
structured story, further including a plurality of first steel
columns and a plurality of first steel beams;
the first steel column being formed as a hollow
rectangular column and having an upper end opening;
the first steel beam being connected to a lateral side of
the respective first steel column;
a fire-prevention floor slab, constructed on top of the first
steel beams and protruded partly into the end opening of the
first steel column; and
a second fire-prevention district having at least a steel-
structured story, including a plurality of second steel columns
and a plurality of second steel beams, having a lower end
portion to extrude downward an engagement plate and an
engagement column;
the engagement plate being fixed to the fire-prevention
floor slab;
the engagement column, having a plurality of peripheral
shear connectors, being protruded downward into the end
opening of the first steel column and being embraced by the
fire-prevention floor slab;
said engagement plate and said fire-prevention floor slab
are connected with a plurality of anchor bolts; said fire-
Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732

3
prevention floor slab includes a corrugated steel roof plate and a
fire-resistant material, the corrugated steel roof plate being
engaged with said first steel column, the fire-resistant material
being layered on the corrugated steel roof plate and also partly
filled into said end opening of said first steel column; and
the first fire-prevention district and the second fire-
prevention district are not directly engaged, but connected to
each other through the fire-prevention floor slab in between.
App. Br. (Claims App’x, Claim 1).
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Strehan US 3,145,811 Aug. 25, 1964
Greiner US 3,616,103 Oct. 26, 1971
Patrick US 2005/0246988 A1 Nov. 10, 2005
Danielsson US 7,007,434 B1 Mar. 7, 2006
Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Strehan and Patrick;
II. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Strehan, Patrick, and Danielsson; and
III. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strehan, Patrick, and Greiner.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732

4
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner concluded that the combination of Strehan and Patrick
renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner
found that Strehan discloses most of the elements of the claim, including a
plurality of shear connectors. Id. at 5. The Examiner relied upon ducts 21
as disclosing the claimed shear connectors. Id. The Examiner found that
“[e]lements 21 are structurally equivalent to the peripheral shear connectors
of the instant invention and function in the same way.” Id. at 9. The
Examiner further found that “the element, as claimed, is not different than
the element in the prior art.” Id.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to this rejection,
including, inter alia, that the Examiner erred by finding that ducts 21
disclose the claimed “shear connectors.” App. Br. 5.1 Appellant contends
that the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art ducts “function the
same” as the claimed shear connectors, arguing that the shear connectors
function to “ensure the holding between the engagement column and the
fire-resistant material inserted inside the end opening,” whereas Strehan’s
ducts function to allow free passageways for the escape of steam and vapors
from the core. Id. at 5-6.
Claim 1 recites that the engagement column has “a plurality of
peripheral shear connectors.” App. Br. (Claims App’x, Claim 1). The
Specification reflects that the “peripheral shear connectors . . . ensure the

1 Although the Appeal Brief does not include page numbers, Appellant’s
argument appears on the fifth page of the Brief.
Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732

5
holding of the engagement column with the fire-resistant material inserted
inside the end opening.” Spec., para. [0009]2; see id. at para. [0019] (“The
engagement column 333 has a plurality of peripheral shear connectors 335 to
ensure the holding between the engagement column 333 and the fire-
resistant material 322 inserted inside the end opening 313.”); see also fig. 2B
(element 335). Thus, the clearly disclosed function of the shear connectors,
as the claim phrase implies, is to connect; and specifically, to connect the
engagement column and the fire resistant material.
Strehan is directed to a prefabricated fireproof building column, which
includes “ports or openings 19 in the wall of casing 11” for “venting of the
expanding gases in the casing.” Strehan, col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 3; figs. 1-3.
“Each row of such venting ports is preferably covered by a duct 21, which
may consist of a steel channel, spot-welded or otherwise secured to the
exterior of the casing 11.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 7-10. The ducts “afford free
passageways for the escape of steam and vapors from the core 12 to the top
of the insulated area of the column.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 12-15.
The Examiner’s finding that ducts 21 function in the same way as the
claimed shear connectors is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Ans. 9. The structure of the ducts does not suggest that the
ducts are capable of performing the connecting function of the shear
connectors. Further, the Examiner has not identified anything in Strehan
that suggests the ducts are capable of performing such function.

2 Citations to the Specification refer to the Substitute Specification filed
December 10, 2009.
Appeal 2011-007627
Application 11/865,732

6
Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding—that ducts 21 disclose
the claimed shear connectors—is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II and III
Rejections II and III similarly rely upon Strehan’s ducts as disclosing
the claimed shear connectors. Ans. 6-7. Accordingly, for the reasons
explained in the context of Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejections II and
III.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5-7.

REVERSED

hh