13082532 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2017)

Ex Parte Matsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 4, 2017

13082532 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2017)

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. 13/082,532 04/08/2011 MARC R. MATSEN 10-1239-US-NP 6268 63759 7590 10/06/2017 DTTKFW YFF EXAMINER YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, PHUONG T P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/06/2017 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): ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com patentadmin @ boeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARC R. MATSEN and MARK A. NEGLEY Appeal 2016-005833 Application 13/082,532 Technology Center 3700 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 14, 22 through 24, and 26 through 29, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a composite fabrication apparatus which uses induction consolidation of thermoplastic composites in an autoclave for Appeal 2016-005833 Application 13/082,532 consolidation pressure. The apparatus includes a base mandrel with a ferromagnetic base facesheet having a Curie temperature and magnetic induction coils. The mandrel supports the composite part and allows ambient air pressure to compact the composite part against the mandrel facesheet. See paragraphs 2, 5 and Figures 1 and 1A of Appellants’ specification. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A composite induction consolidation apparatus for heating and consolidating a composite part, comprising: a base mandrel; a ferromagnetic base mandrel facesheet having a specific Curie temperature carried by said base mandrel; said base mandrel facesheet is adapted to support the composite part and allow ambient air pressure to compact the composite part against said base mandrel facesheet; at least one magnetic induction coil in said base mandrel; an enclosing hood connected to said base mandrel; a bagging positioned between said base mandrel and said enclosing hood, the composite part positioned in the bagging, the bagging evacuated such that the composite part is consolidated onto the base mandrel with ambient air pressure; and an autoclave, said base mandrel and said enclosing hood contained in said autoclave. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 14, 22 through 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderson et al. 2 Appeal 2016-005833 Application 13/082,532 (US 6,979,807 B2; Dec. 27, 2005) (“Anderson”) and Tapphom et al. (US 2002/0168466 Al; Nov. 14, 2002) (“Tapphom”). Final Act. 3-9.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderson, Tapphom, and Matsen et al. (US 2009/0071217 Al; Mar. 19, 2009) (“Matsen”). Final Act. 9-10. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Anderson and Tapphom teach a bagging positioned between the base mandrel and hood, where the composite part is in the bagging and the bagging is evacuated such that the part is consolidated onto the base mandrel with ambient air pressure. App. Br. 6—10. Specifically, Appellants assert that Tapphom, which the Examiner relies upon to teach the bagging, does not teach a stmcture which produces pressure on a composite part such that the composite part is consolidated on to a base mandrel with ambient air pressure. App. Br. 9—10. In response to Appellants’ arguments the Examiner states: the primary Anderson reference as show in figs.4 and 4A, discloses substantially all the features of invention as cited in the claim including a bagging (12, 36, 42, 44, 70b, figs.4 and 4A) positioned between said base mandrel (die 16, figs.4 and 4A) and said enclosing hood (die 14, fig.4), the composite part (workpiecel2, figs.4 and 4A) positioned in the bagging (12, 36, 42, 44, 70b). Second, the secondary Tapphon reference is used 1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 28, 2015) (“Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed May 16, 2016) (“Reply Br.), the Final Office Action (mailed July 30, 2015) (“Final Act.”), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed March 14, 2016) (“Ans.”). 3 Appeal 2016-005833 Application 13/082,532 as an evidence to show that a bagging (substrate 12, fig.7) evacuated (evacuator chamber 41, fig.7) such that the composite part (par.0018 cited: “ . . . the object of the present invention relates to a new method and process for applying various multi layer coatings, functionally graded materials, functionally formed in-situ composites, and ex-situ composites onto substrates for surface modification and consolidation . . . ”) is consolidated onto the base mandrel with an ambient air pressure (par.0074, lines 36-38 cited: “ one method of the thermal- plastic conditioning or heating the powder particles and substrate with an ambient pressure ...”). Moreover, since the applicant does not specifically define the structure of a bagging. For the purpose of examination, the substrate 12, fig. 7 of the Tapphon reference is considered as a bagging. Ans. 2—3 (emphasis omitted). We have reviewed the teachings of both Anderson and Tapphom and disagree with the Examiner’s findings that both teach the claimed bagging. Each of the independent claims recites that the composite part positioned in the bagging, the bagging evacuated such that the composite part is consolidated onto the base mandrel with ambient air pressure. With regard to the Examiner’s finding that Anderson teaches all of the limitations of the claims including the bagging, the Examiner lists several elements of Figure 4 as comprising the bagging, this list includes the composite part itself, the Examiner has not explained or cited to a teaching in Anderson as to how any of these elements, has the composite part position therein and would consolidate the composite part against a mandrel with ambient air pressure when evacuated. Anderson teaches a different arrangement where a bladder is pressurized to expand and urge a workpiece into contact with a die. See col 6.11. 12—21 (i.e., the workpiece is not in a bagging that is evacuated and ambient pressure is not used to consolidate the material). Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Tapphom teaches the claimed 4 Appeal 2016-005833 Application 13/082,532 bagging, equating the substrate item 12 in Figure 7 with the claimed bagging. The Examiner has not shown nor do we find any evidence that substrate 12, has the composite part position therein and would consolidate the composite part against a mandrel with ambient air pressure when evacuated. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that the combination of the references teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 14, 22 through 24, 26, and 27. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 28 and 29 similarly rely upon the combination of Anderson and Tapphom to teach the limitations of independent claim 1 and 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 29 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 14, 22 through 24, and 26 through 29 is reversed. REVERSED 5