14036357 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Thompson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2018

14036357 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/036,357 09/25/2013 8131 7590 10/25/2018 MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC 784 SOUTH POSEYVILLE ROAD MIDLAND, MI 48640 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark Thompson 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. MSH-904 1017 EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2018 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 MARK THOMPSON Appeal 2018-001116 Application 14/036,357 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Mark Thompson ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Cargill (US 2005/0118383 Al, pub. June 2, 2005) and Meyer (US 2004/0035059 Al, pub. Feb. 26, 2004). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2018-001116 Application 14/036,357 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 12, the sole claim on appeal, is reproduced below. 12. A method of protecting a structure from fire, said method comprising draping said structure with a high temperature of insulation material and thereafter, applying a layer of fire retardant liquid absorbent material; thereafter, spraying with fire-retardant liquid. OPINION The Examiner finds that Cargill teaches a fire protection method that includes "applying onto the entire structure, a cover device ... , the cover device comprising a layer of fire-retardant liquid absorbent material ... ; and thereafter, spraying a fire-retardant liquid onto the layer of fire-retardant liquid absorbent material." Final Act. 3 (citing Cargill ,r 81, 11. 1-3, 7-8, 11- 18). Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Cargill teaches that this method is useful to protect a structure from forest fires. Id. at 3--4 ( citing Cargill ,r 85). The Examiner acknowledges that "Cargill is silent as to a first step of draping the structure with a high temperature insulation material, prior to the application of the layer of fire-retardant liquid absorbent material" (id. at 3), but finds that Meyer teaches "draping a structure with a cover ( see, for example, Figure 7) made from a high temperature insulation material for the purpose of protecting the structure from an approaching external fire, such as a forest fire (see paragraph [0035])" (id. at 4). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Cargill' s method "to include a step of draping the structure with a high temperature insulation material, as taught by Meyer, prior to the step of applying the fire- retardant liquid absorbent material, thereby providing the structure with the added benefit of a resistance to water and high temperatures." Id. at 5. 2 Appeal 2018-001116 Application 14/036,357 Appellant argues that, "if one were to combine Cargill with [Meyer,] they would use the fire blanket of Cargill as the ... fire-resistant cover in [Meyer]." Br. 4. Appellant asserts that "[t]here is nothing that would suggest to add an extra layer to the fire resistant protective cover of Meyer after it is unrolled." Id. According to Appellant, "[t]o require that an additional layer be added after one layer has been unrolled would defeat the purpose of Meyer." Id. We are not persuaded by this line of argument because it is not responsive to the modification proposed by the Examiner in the rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner does not propose modifying Meyer's method or cover. Rather, the Examiner proposes modifying Cargill 's method by adding a step of draping a high temperature insulation material over the structure before applying the fire-retardant liquid absorbent material and spraying with fire-retardant liquid. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 5-6. In this regard, Appellant's argument does not specifically address the Examiner's reasoning articulated in support of the conclusion of obviousness or adequately explain why the Examiner's reasoning lacks rational underpinnings. See Final Act. 5 (reasoning that modifying Cargill's method to include a first step of draping Meyer's high temperature insulation would provide "the added benefit of a resistance to water and high temperatures"); Ans. 6-7 ( explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to drape a structure with Meyer's high temperature insulation before draping the structure with Cargill' s liquid absorbing cover because it would protect the structure against water damage that might be sustained from spraying Cargill's liquid absorbing cover with a large quantity of water and would provide additional protection from intense heat of the fire, which would 3 Appeal 2018-001116 Application 14/036,357 "become increasingly destructive to the structure as the water from the Cargill cover evaporates"). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Cargill and Meyer. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Cargill and Meyer is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4