NEXANS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2021

2020004520 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
13/666,013 11/01/2012 Mark Stemmle 979-638 3727
39600 7590 07/07/2021
SOFER & HAROUN LLP.
215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1301
NEW YORK, NY 10016
EXAMINER
MENGESHA, WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2021 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):
dockets@soferharoun.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK STEMMLE and ERIK MARZAHN

Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Nexans. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
The claimed subject matter in this Appeal relates to techniques for
compensating for the movement of a cryostat, during thermal contraction or
expansion. See Spec. 1. Independent claims 1 and 16 are in the Appeal.
Claim 1 involves compensating for such movement, with a “support” having
“wheels” that “roll[ ]” along a “stationary rail.” Claim 16 involves
compensating for such movement, with a “support” having “a plurality of
arms pivotably attached to one another.” Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. Combination cryostat and apparatus for supporting
and guiding a midsection span of said cryostat, the cryostat
having a first longitudinal axis, the midsection span of said
cryostat movable, along a second transverse axis, transverse to
said first longitudinal axis, between a first position at ambient
temperature and a second contracted position on cooling down
of the same,
wherein said midsection span of said cryostat movable
between said first and second positions is supported and guided
by said apparatus along said second transverse axis,
perpendicularly to said first longitudinal axis when said cryostat
moves between said first and second positions,
said apparatus further comprising:
a support that surrounds and supports said midsection
span of the cryostat, said support having wheels whose axes of
rotation are arranged essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the cryostat; and
at least one stationary rail which extends perpendicular to
said first longitudinal axis of the cryostat and parallel to said
second transverse axis, said support slidable along said rail,
wherein the rail and support are arranged to movably
support said midsection span of said cryostat between said first
and second positions by rolling of said wheels of said support,
sliding said support along said stationary rail.
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
III. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Alleaume (US 3,583,352, issued June 8, 1971).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 1 and 16 stand rejected under both 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (written
description) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (indefiniteness).
The Appellant maintains that a proposed claim amendment would
have overcome the § 112 rejections. Appeal Br. 13. The amendment has
not been entered; however, the Appellant is “willing to make the
Amendment to the claims” in order to overcome the § 112 rejections. Id.
Because the Appellant does not advance any argument persuasive of
error in these rejections, we summarily affirm the rejections of claims 1 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Clams 1 and 16 stand rejected as anticipated by Alleaume, which
relates to a “tank . . . adapted to contain a cryogenic fluid” with a
“supporting device” that “allows the free thermal contraction or expansion
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

4
of the tank.” Alleaume col. 2, ll. 31–35. Alleaume teaches distinct
embodiments that accommodate thermal contraction or expansion through
the use of: (1) “at least two rotary loose or idler rollers or wheels 22, 23
spaced longitudinally from each other and in rolling engagement with two
roller paths, runways or guide tracks 24, 25” (id. col. 6, ll. 47–50; Fig. 4, 5);
and (2) a “hinged or deformable parallelogram” having “pivotally
connected” “rigid link[s] or rod[s]” (id. col. 4, ll. 60–65; Figs. 1–3).
The Appellant argues that Alleaume’s “tank” is not a “cryostat” per
the claims. Appeal Br. 15. To the contrary, as the Examiner states, a
“cryostat” is simply an apparatus for maintaining a very low temperature.
Answer 6. This understanding comports with a standard dictionary
definition of “cryostat.” See American Heritage Dictionary (accessed July 1,
2021) (https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cryostat)
(defining “cryostat” as “[a]n apparatus used to maintain constant low
temperature.”)
The Appellant also argues that Alleaume lacks a “pipe” and an
“apparatus . . . for guiding such a pipe at the portion where such
pipe/cryostat is in an arc-shape/bent arrangement.” Appeal Br. 15. See also
id. at 17–19 (referring to Alleaume’s failure to teach an “arc-shaped sub
section.”) However, as the Examiner explains, the claims do not recite a
“pipe” or an “arc-shape/bent arrangement.” Answer 7.
The Appellant further argues that Alleaume “is only concerned with a
device like a tank, vat, cistern, vessel or like container with a shell, casing or
envelope which is substantially a solid revolution at least about one
geometrical axis,” such that Alleaume lacks the recited “cryostat” having a
“longitudinal axis” of claims 1 and 16. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Alleaume
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

5
col. 1, ll. 9–12). To the contrary, as the Examiner points out, nothing in the
claim language precludes mapping the recited “longitudinal axis” to the
selected axis of Alleaume’s tank, because “every object has its own
longitudinal axis.” Answer 11. Indeed, because Alleaume’s cryostat tank is
spherical, it would not matter (in regard to its orientation) which axis would
be deemed “longitudinal.”
The Appellant contends that Alleaume does not teach limitations of
claim 1 that the Appellant re-phrases as “a support system that moves along
a transverse rail as shown and claimed,” as well as claim 1’s features of the
recited “stationary rail” and “support slidable along said rail.” Appeal
Br. 17. The Appellant does not articulate the bases for such deficiencies.
“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Nevertheless, the Examiner’s findings are to the contrary.
Answer 8–9 (citing Alleaume’s embodiments of Figures 4 and 5). We agree
with the Examiner’s findings, to the effect that there is adequate support for
Alleaume’s teaching the recited features, including a “stationary rail which
extends perpendicular to said first longitudinal axis of the cryostat and
parallel to said second transverse axis, said support slidable along said rail,”
as well as the “rail and support . . . arranged to movably support said
midsection span of said cryostat between said first and second positions by
rolling of said wheels of said support, sliding said support along said
stationary rail,” per claim 1. Mapping these features of claim 1 to Alleaume,
the Examiner states:
Alleaume discloses at least one stationary rail (24, 25 of fig. 4;
24', 25' of fig. 5) which extends perpendicular to said first
longitudinal axis of the cryostat and parallel to said second
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

6
transverse axis, said support (4) slidable along said rail
(support 4 is movable via wheels [22, 23] on the rail (24, 25,
24', 25'); wherein the rail (24, 25) and support (4) are arranged
to movably support said midsection span of said cryostat ( 1)
between said first and second positions by rolling of said
wheels (22 and 23) of said support, sliding said support along
said stationary rail (see at least fig. 4, 5).
Answer 9.
As to claim 16, in particular, the Appellant contends — albeit, without
explicitly identifying any reasons — that Alleaume lacks features of the
recited “arms pivotably attached to one another.” Appeal Br. 18. Yet, the
Examiner’s findings to the contrary are adequately supported. The
Examiner states:
Alleaume discloses a support (4) that surrounds and supports
said midsection span of the cryostat, said support having a
plurality of arms (7, 8, 9, 31) pivotably (@ pivot point 11, 12,
13, 14) attached to one another and fixedly connected on one
side to said support (4) and on another side to a wall, floor or
ceiling (16), the pivot axes (5) of said arms being parallel to
said longitudinal axis of the cryostat [e.g., y-axis of the
cryostat] (see at least fig[s]. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13); and
wherein the pivotably connected arms (7, 8, 9, 31) and attached
support (4) are arranged to movably support said midsection
span of said cryostat (1) between said first and second positions
(see above) by said arms pivoting relative to one another
longitudinally extending and/or contracting in the transverse
axis, transverse to said longitudinal axis of said cryostat (see at
least fig[s]. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 13; col. 4, line 39 to col. 5, line
51).
Answer 10.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection, such that we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2020-004520
Application 13/666,013

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 16 112(a) Written
Description
1, 16
1, 16 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 16
1, 16 102(b) Alleaume 1, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED