Ex Parte Patterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

14835049 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/835,049
131270 7590
BELZER PC
ATTN: John G. Posa
2905 Bull Street
Savannah, GA 31405
08/25/2015
12/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary Patterson
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.
IDS-19702/14 9115
EXAMINER
FIGUEROA, LUZ ADRIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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 GARY PATTERSON and TONY MCGINNIS
Appeal2018-004367
Application 14/835,049 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is Gary Patterson, applicant and appellant.
Appeal Br. 1
Appeal2018-004367
Application 14/835,049
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for protecting a critical asset on a ground
surface, comprising:
a plurality of vertical members extending vertically
upwardly from the ground surface, each vertical member being
anchored into the ground beneath the ground surface;
inner and outer stacks of spaced-apart horizontal members
connected between adjacent pairs of the vertical members
defining a plurality of vertical walls;
wherein the spaced-apart horizontal members have cross
sections and spacings such that no line can be drawn through the
wall without intersecting with one or both of the inner and outer
stacks;
wherein the cross sections of the horizontal members in
both stacks include elongated angled surfaces such that projectile
on a trajectory toward the critical asset is deflected upwardly or
downwardly and away from the critical asset; and
wherein the vertical members are spaced apart around the
critical asset such that the vertical walls entirely surround the
critical asset.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of Katsanis et al. (US 4,727,789; issued Mar. 1, 1988)
and Ahmad (US 6,973,864 Bl; issued Dec. 13, 2005).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Katsanis' s disclosures of a shielding device
for protecting people or equipment teaches or suggests each limitation of
claim 1 except that Katsanis does not expressly disclose each vertical
2
Appeal2018-004367
Application 14/835,049
member being anchored into the ground beneath the ground surface, as
claimed. Final Act. 2-3; see, e.g., Katsanis, Abstract. For the limitation
missing from Katsanis, the Examiner cites Ahmad's disclosures of a
protective-structure system that includes vertical members anchored into the
ground beneath the ground surface. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues Katsanis does not describe a barrier suitable for use
on a ground surface and that Katsanis' s teachings are limited to a portable
vehicle or a barrier on wheels. Appeal Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant
cites Katsanis's Figures that depict barriers having wheels (Appeal Br. 2
(citing Katsanis's Figures 3, 4)) and Katsanis's statements that "barrier walls
may be used as permanently set walls in such a portable vehicle or may be
produced in panel type structures which can be used for modular
construction" (Appeal Br. 3 ( quoting Katsanis 4: 1--4)). Appellant further
argues that in addition to the disclosures of a vehicle-based barrier,
Katsanis' s reference to "modular" construction teaches away from anchors
set into the ground as claimed. Appeal Br. 4--5; cf Reply Br. 2 ("Appellant
concedes that Katsanis' device may be used in a 'permanent building
placement."').
We disagree with Appellant's arguments that Katsanis' s teachings are
limited to vehicular or other non-permanent installations into which
explosives are placed. See Appeal Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 1-2. Among other
things, Katsanis describes a wide range of applications for its shielding
barriers such as airports, bus stations, and factories, beyond its mobile
applications such as vehicles for the transportation of explosives. Katsanis
1:28-2:9. Further, Katsanis expressly states that its shielding device "may
3
Appeal2018-004367
Application 14/835,049
be used in either a permanent building placement or portable device to
protect persons or equipment." Abstract.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments that Katsanis' s disclosures of
"modular" construction teaches away from the claimed invention, we note
that Appellant's Specification repeatedly describes Appellant's system as
"modular." E.g., Spec. ,r,r 1 ("This invention relates generally to critical asset
protection and, in particular, to a modular ballistic deflection barrier
assembly."), 15 ("being modular in nature, the barrier 100 may be
configured to partially surround an asset or any other appropriate
arrangement"). Katsanis similarly teaches that its "shielding barrier may be
constructed in modular units for use in containment devices ... or may be
made in larger or smaller sizes and incorporated into various types of
structures to achieve protection when needed." Katsanis 4:42--47.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments do not substantively address the combined
teachings of Katsanis and Ahmad, as Ahmad expressly teaches a protective
structure "for protecting buildings, bridges, roads and other areas from
explosive devices." Ahmad, Abstract.
Appellant also argues Katsanis "does not disclose a critical asset
( other than, perhaps a person)." Appeal Br. 5. But, even if "critical asset"
were interpreted to not include people, Katsanis plainly describes protecting
people or equipment. Abstract ("shielding device which may be used ... to
protect persons or equipment"). Further, we agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill would have understood the combination of Katsanis
and Ahmad to teach or reasonably suggest that the vertical members are
spaced around a critical asset to entirely surround the critical asset. See, e.g.,
Katsanis 1 :44--50 ("In an industrial plant, for example, equipment subject to
4
Appeal2018-004367
Application 14/835,049
explosion may be surrounded by a suppressive shield in order to protect
workers. Where it is desired to protect an enclosure from outside explosion,
such a shield may be reversed, so that occupants in an industrial control
room could be protected.") ( emphasis added). Accordingly, we disagree
with Appellant that the proposed combination of Katsanis and Ahmad would
not teach or suggest "vertical members are spaced apart around the critical
asset such that the vertical walls entirely surround the critical asset." Appeal
Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 1-2.
Having considered the Examiner's rejection in light of each of
Appellant's arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with the
Examiner and sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the
rejection of dependent claims 2---6, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6.
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