Ex Parte KayeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201611792159 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 11/792,159 06/01/2007 Allan Kaye 2733.49WOUS 2102 24113 7590 07/29/2016 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. 4800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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 ALLAN KAYE ________________ Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Allan Kaye (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Claims 12–17 are cancelled. See Amendment dated Aug. 20, 2009. Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A trussed structure for use in an aircraft comprising an outer frame and supported by at least one strut, wherein the frame is of composite material and includes sockets which are integral with the frame, such that the frame and sockets are made as one piece, said sockets being in a paired relationship so that a first socket has an open axial path to allow an insertion of a strut through the frame to a second socket. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hagenlocher (US 6,056,240; iss. May 2, 2000) and Ochs (US 4,453,558; iss. June 12, 1984). II. Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Gautier (US 5,567,509; iss. Oct. 22, 1996). III. Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Simpson (US 2004/0079838 A1; pub. Apr. 29, 2004). IV. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Qui (US 6,555,488 B1; iss. Apr. 29, 2003). V. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Hartness (US 6,565,944 B1; iss. May 20, 2003). Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 1–11 as a group. Appeal Br. 17. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015). Claims 2–11 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Hagenlocher teaches, inter alia, “at least one strut 5 and [] sockets 9, 11.” Final Act. 2 (citing Hagenlocher, Fig. 2b). The Examiner acknowledges that Hagenlocher may not explicitly teach “sockets being integral with the frame, such that the frame and sockets are made as one piece.” Id. However, the Examiner also finds that Ochs teaches that it is well known for “sockets 26, 25, 34” to be “integral with the frame parts (14).” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to make Hagenlocher’s sockets integral with its frame, as taught by Ochs, “to easily assemble the trussed structure.” Id. The issues in this case are whether the combination of Hagenlocher and Ochs would render obvious: (1) “sockets which are integral with the frame, such that the frame and sockets are made as one piece;” and (2) “said sockets being in a paired relationship such that a first socket has an open axial path to allow an insertion of a strut though the frame to a second socket.” See Appeal Br. 10–17; Reply Br. 4–10. Sockets Which Are Integral with the Frame Appellant argues that Hagenlocher discloses multi-part sockets that are joined by a bonding agent to a multi-part frame, such that the sockets and the frame are not integral with one another. Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies on Ochs, not Hagenlocher, for teaching sockets that are integral with the frame. See Final Act. 2. Appellant’s arguments are limited to Hagenlocher alone Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 4 and, therefore, do not address the Examiner’s proposed combination of Hagenlocher and Ochs. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Ochs is misplaced, because Ochs’ “coupling parts” are located at frame joints and are employed to facilitate assembly of the frame, whereas the integral sockets recited in claim 1 are not located at frame joints and serve to strengthen and support the frame, such that “the allegedly ‘integral’ sockets of Ochs cannot serve as a basis for a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner responds that Ochs is only relied upon to teach that it is well-known to form an integral/one-piece frame and sockets. Ans. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner is not proposing to add the coupling parts of Ochs to Hagenlocher, but rather to modify the sockets of Hagenlocher to be integral with the frame, as taught by Ochs. See Final Act. 2. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 3) that combining Hagenlocher’s disclosure of an outer frame and sockets with Ochs’ teaching that sockets are known to be integral with the frame results in “sockets which are integral with the frame, such that the frame and sockets are made as one piece” as recited in claim 1. We additionally agree with the Examiner’s alternative finding that Hagenlocher itself teaches the claimed integral frame and sockets. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Hagenlocher discloses an outer frame and Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 5 sockets which “are bonded to the frame with adhesives and thus broadly interpreted does form an ‘integral’ or ‘one piece’” frame and sockets. Ans. 3. Appellant replies that the Examiner’s interpretation of “integral” is too broad because the application defines “integral” as “made as one piece.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec., p. 2, ll. 9–11). We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “integral” and “made as one piece,” particularly in light of Appellant’s Specification, encompasses components that are bonded, i.e., combined, together to form a single structure.2 See Ans. 3. Appellant’s Specification describes the frame and sockets comprising carbon plies 8 and 10 which are stitched together, and then “aerospace epoxy resin is infused into the carbon plies 8 and 10 and the resin is then cured.” Spec. 9, ll. 15–20; Figs. 2A–2E. Similarly, Hagenlocher discloses frame and socket parts that are bonded together to form a framework. See Hagenlocher, col. 4, ll. 36–54; Fig. 2B and 2C. If infusing and curing resin can make parts integral, we see no reason why Hagenlocher’s bonding does not also make parts integral. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Appellant’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “integral” is too narrow and not commensurate with the scope of the claim as one skilled in the art would understand the term “integral” in light of the Specification. 2 The Examiner’s position that “integral” includes multiple pieces joined together is supported by precedent. See, e.g., In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 960 n.4 (CCPA 1968); In re Dike, 394 F.2d 584, 589, (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967–968 (CCPA 1965); and In re Clark, 214 F.2d 148, 150 (CCPA 1954). Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 6 Sockets in a Paired Relationship The Examiner finds that Hagenlocher discloses that “strut 5 can go through the first socket 9[, which] has an open axial path to allow the strut 5 through the frame to the second socket 11.” Final Act. 2 (citing Hagenlocher, Fig. 3c); see also Ans. 3–4. Appellant argues that: If, as the Examiner suggests, the chords [5] disclosed by Hagenlocher represent the claimed outer frame, there is no “open axial path” for the struts as claimed because the chords pass through the longitudinal “sockets” of Hagenlocher while the struts of Hagenlocher are in sockets that are closed at each end. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues that chord 5 of Hagenlocher is not a strut because the Examiner has identified chord 5 as the frame, such that it cannot “extend ‘through the frame’ as required by the language of claim 1.” Reply Br. 7. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner is not relying on Hagenlocher’s chord 5 for teaching the outer frame. The Examiner has identified chord 5 as corresponding to the claimed strut, and has identified Hagenlocher’s struts 6 as corresponding to the claimed outer frame. Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner’s findings, sockets 9 and 11 of outer frame 6 are in a paired relationship, so that first socket 9 has an open axial path to allow insertion of strut 5 through frame 6 to second socket 11. Id.; Hagenlocher, Figs. 2b and 2c. Appellant misinterprets the Examiner’s rejection, and thereby fails to apprise us of error. Appellant further argues that the coupling parts of Ochs are not in a “paired relationship” and “do not have an ‘open axial path’ because the Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 7 structures that enter them ‘have stopped engagement against dimple 44 as clearly shown in Fig. 8.’” Appeal Br. 14–16 (citing Ochs, col. 3, ll. 46–47). Again, Appellant’s arguments do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner is relying on Hagenlocher for teaching sockets in a paired relationship, and one socket having an open axial path for insertion of a strut. See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3–4. Appellant fails to define sockets in a “paired relationship” in such a way that it excludes Hagenlocher’s elements 9 and 11. Regarding the “open axial path” the Examiner finds that Hagenlocher’s strut 5 passes through both socket 9 and socket 11, such that these sockets 9, 11 provide an open axial path. Ans. 3–4. We discern no error in this finding. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher and Ochs, and claims 2–11 fall therewith. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher and Ochs. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Gautier. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Simpson. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Qiu. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hagenlocher, Ochs, and Hartness. Appeal 2014-007652 Application 11/792,159 8 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation