Hexagon Technology AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020006006 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
15/441,433 02/24/2017 John A. Eihusen L544.0023US2 6694
27367 7590 07/27/2021
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
121 South Eighth Street
Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
PAGAN, JAVIER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
docketing@wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN A. EIHUSEN, NORMAN L. NEWHOUSE, and
NICHOLAS N. KLEINSCHMIT
Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–8, and 12–15. Claims 2–5 are
canceled, and claims 9–11 and 16–24 are withdrawn due to a restriction
requirement.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Hexagon Technology AS, a subsidiary of
Hexagon Composites ASA, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appellant argues on appeal that the Examiner’s restriction requirement is
improper. See Appeal Br. 7–8. That issue is not for the Board to resolve.
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.144 (“the applicant . . . may petition the Director to review
the requirement”).
Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a “longitudinal vent” disposed
within a pressure vessel for venting pockets of gas that may become trapped
between a liner and an outer shell of the vessel. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4–5. Of the
pending claims, two are independent—claims 1 and 12. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A pressure vessel having a first end with a first boss and
the vessel having a cylindrical portion, the vessel comprising:
a liner;
a composite shell disposed over the liner; and
a first longitudinal vent disposed between the liner and
the composite shell, the first longitudinal vent comprising
an elongated vent defining element, the first longitudinal
vent extending at least from the cylindrical portion to the
first boss, wherein an end of the first longitudinal vent is
disposed along an outer surface of a neck of the boss,
and wherein the end is open to the atmosphere.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6–8, and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Duvall (US 5,476,189, iss. Dec. 19, 1995),
Brupbacher (US 6,648,167 B1, iss. Nov. 18, 2003), and Schlag (US
2009/0057319 A1, pub. Mar. 5, 2009). See Final Act. 2–6.
Claims 1, 6–8, and 12–15 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claims 1–11 of Eihusen (US 9,618,160 B2, iss. Apr.
11, 2017). See Final Act. 7–8.

Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433

3
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness
Central to this appeal is whether the Examiner provides sufficient
reasoning for combining the teachings of Duvall, Brupbacher, and Schlag.
To begin, the Examiner finds that Duvall discloses the basic elements of a
pressure vessel as claimed, including a liner, a shell, and a boss, and further
finds that Brupbacher teaches a vent defining element within a pressure
vessel for forming an elongated vent along the cylindrical and dome portions
of the vessel. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the
art would have deemed it obvious to modify the pressure vessel of Duvall
with the elongated vent defining element taught by Brupbacher “because
including the vent would allow for passages between the line[r] and shell for
channeling fluids which may penetrate through the liner.” Id. at 3 (citing
Brupbacher, 2:65–3:2).
Appellant does not apprise us of error with the Examiner’s
combination of Duvall and Brupbacher. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Rather,
Appellant takes issue with what the Examiner does next. In particular, the
Examiner acknowledges that “Duvall, in view of Brupbacher, do[es] not
explicitly teach an end of the first longitudinal vent is disposed along an
outer surface of a neck of the boss, and wherein the end is open to the
atmosphere” and points to Schlag for the missing teaching. Final Act. 3.
Pointing to Schlag’s teaching of a pressure vessel having a longitudinal vent
running along an outer surface of the boss of the pressure vessel, the
Examiner concludes that one skilled in the art would have deemed it obvious
to extend the longitudinal vent of the modified Duvall/Brupbacher pressure
vessel such that it runs along an outer surface of the boss, as taught by
Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433

4
Schlag, because doing so “allows for the fluid to exit either end of the
vessel.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Schlag ¶ 39); see also Ans. 8 (same).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s reason for combining Schlag’s
teaching with the modified Duvall/Brupbacher pressure vessel to arrive at
the invention recited by independent claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 8–12.
According to Appellant, “[b]ecause the teachings of Brupbacher itself
already leads to the result of allowing for fluid to exit either end of the
vessel, one would not turn to Schlag.” Id. at 10. Appellant is correct. As
shown in Brupbacher’s Figures 3 and 5, the longitudinal vents include
openings 50, 52 for allowing fluid to exit from the cylindrical portion of the
vessel, and more notably, include openings 80 for allowing fluids to exit
from the domed end portion of the pressure vessel. See Brupbacher, 7:15–
8:7. In other words, Duvall’s pressure vessel, as modified to include
Brupbacher’s longitudinal vents and openings, already allows fluid to exit
the domed end portion of the vessel without any modification from Schlag.
And because the Examiner’s reason for looking to Schlag—that it teaches an
opening that allows fluid to exit from the domed end portion of the pressure
vessel—is already taught by Brupbacher, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has provided sufficient reason supported by rational underpinning
for why one skilled in the art would modify the Duvall/Brupbacher pressure
vessel with the redundant teaching of Schlag.
Absent an objective reason from the Examiner for combining the
teaching of Schlag with those of Duvall and Brupbacher, the Examiner fails
to establish a proper prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 6–
8 depending therefrom.
Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433

5
Claim 12, like claim 1, requires that the longitudinal vent extend from
the cylindrical portion of the vessel to the boss. In rejecting claim 12, the
Examiner relies on essentially the same deficient reason for combining
Duvall, Brupbacher, and Schlag as applied to claim 1. See Final Act. 5
(reasoning that Schlag’s longitudinal vent “allows for more fluid passage
causing quicker fluid passage,” which is no different than what Brupbacher
already teaches). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, as well
as claims 13–15 depending therefrom, for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 1.3
B. Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6–8, and 12–15 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No.
9,618,160. See Final Act. 6–8. Appellant does not contest this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 12. “If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular
issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as
a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (citing,
e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

3 Our decision reversing the Examiner’s obviousness rejection should in no
way be construed as an indication that the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 12 is patentable. As the Board’s function is primarily one of
appellate review, we make no determination as to whether one skilled in the
art may have a different reason than that articulated by the Examiner for
combining Schlag (which clearly teaches extending the longitudinal vent of
a pressure vessel from a cylindrical portion of the vessel to the outside
surface of the neck of a boss) with one or more of the prior art references of
record to render claims 1 and 12 unpatentable.

Appeal 2020-006006
Application 15/441,433

6
(precedential). Absent any argument from Appellant, we summarily affirm
the rejection of claims 1, 6–8, and 12–15 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–8, 12–15 103(a) Duvall, Brupbacher,
Schlag
1, 6–8,
12–15
1, 6–8, 12–15 Nonstatutory Double
Patenting,
US 9,618,160 B2
1, 6–8,
12–15

Overall
Outcome
1, 6–8,
12–15

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED