Ex Parte Stadtlander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

11441893 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/441,893 05/26/2006 Daniel M. Stadtlander 2244U;67097-649PUS1 9648
54549 7590 04/24/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2013 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 DANIEL M. STADTLANDER and
WILLIAM BOGUE
________________

Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12-25. Claims 1-11, which are all of the other claims,
stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a perforated composite. Claims 12 and 13 are
illustrative:
12. A perforated composite component having a section restored
including a non-perforated skin and a honeycomb between the non-
perforated skin and a repair material prepared by a process comprising the
steps of:
(a) removing an undesirable section of a perforated skin;
(b) depositing a repair material in the location of the removed
undesirable section;
(c) curing the repair material; and
(d) forming at least one opening through the repair material prior to
completing step (c) to produce at least one perforation through the repair
material upon completing step (c).

13. A perforated composite component comprising:
a honeycomb;
a perforated skin bonded to the honeycomb; and
a repair section bonded to the perforated skin, wherein the repair
section comprises at least one perforation that extends there through and at
least one continuous reinforcement fiber that has been displaced within the
repair section to accommodate the at least one perforation.

Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

3
The References
Scanlon US 5,246,520 Sep. 21, 1993
Mnich US 5,807,628 Sep. 15, 1998
Westre US 5,866,272 Feb. 2, 1999
Charmes US 6,355,203 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Ohliger US 6,451,241 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Jackson US 2004/0126537 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claim 12
over Charmes in view of Mnich, claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view
of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre,
claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon, claims 13-16,
24 and 25 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes
in view of Ohliger and Scanlon.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
Rejection of claim 12 over Charmes in view of Mnich
Claim 12 requires a perforated composite having a section restored by
a repair material with at least one perforation through it.
Charmes discloses a process for repairing a defect (hole 1a) in an
object (1) comprising a honeycomb core (22) covered by a fiber/resin
composite (20, 21) (col. 1, ll. 38-45; col. 5, ll. 57-63; col. 9, ll. 11-14).
Charmes fills the defect with a honeycomb core piece (24) and fiber/resin
composite pieces (2, 23) such that the object’s fiber/resin composite surface
is continuous (col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 41; col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 19; col. 9,
ll. 11-25; Fig. 3). The only exemplified object is an aircraft wing (col. 3,
l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67).
Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

4
Mnich discloses a process for repairing a sound suppression panel
comprising a honeycomb core (12) covered by a perforated metal sheet (18)
having thereon a damaged porous wire cloth (22) (col. 2, l. 51 – col. 3, l. 4).
Mnich strips away the wire cloth (22), sands the perforated sheet (18) to the
bare metal, vacuums, through the perforated sheet (18)’s perforations (20),
the interior of the honeycomb core (12)’s cells (14) to remove from them
any debris, and then forms a thin polymer film (24) on the outer surface of
the perforated sheet (18) (col. 3, ll. 10-45).
The Examiner argues that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to perforate the repair material of Charmes in order
for any debris collected during the repair process to be removed by vacuum
through the perforations” (Ans. 8).
Mnich vacuums through the perforations (20) because the sheet (18)
containing the perforations is not removed during the repair process (col. 3,
ll. 28-37). Charmes removes the defect (1a) in the fiber/resin composite (20,
21) and then fills the defect (1a) with a honeycomb core piece (24) and
fiber/resin composite pieces (2, 23) (col. 9, ll. 11-25; Fig. 3). The Examiner
has not provided an apparent reason why, to remove debris generated during
removal of the defect (1a), one of ordinary skill in the art would have
perforating the fiber/resin composite repair pieces (2, 23) and removed the
debris through the perforations rather than removing the debris before the
fiber/resin composite repair pieces (2, 23) are installed. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed
by the Examiner). Also, the Examiner has not established that one of
Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

5
ordinary skill in the art would have desired perforations in Charmes’ skins
(monolithic layers 20, 21), the only examples of which are aircraft wing
surfaces (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 12 over Charmes in
view of Mnich.
Rejections of claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of
Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson
and Westre and claims 18-23 over Charmes
in view of Jackson and Scanlon

We need to address only claim 13, which is the sole independent
claim among claims 13-24.1 That claim requires a perforated skin which
includes a perforated repair material.
Jackson teaches that “[h]oneycomb panels typically include load
carrying or structural layers on opposite sides of the honeycomb cellular
structure” (¶ 0004). Jackson perforates the structural layers (16) to prevent
gases and/or liquids from being trapped in the honeycomb cells (12, 14)
(¶¶ 0012, 0040, 0043). Jackson states that “[b]ecause the cells[’] walls are
not damaged by trapped moisture, the vented cell structure 10 of the present
invention does not need to be replaced as often as conventional cell
structures” (¶ 0044).
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Jackson to perforate Charmes’ skin
sections (monolithic layers 20, 21) and repair sections (2, 23) to prevent

1 The Examiner does not rely upon Westre or Scanlon for any disclosure that
remedies the deficiency in Charmes and Jackson as to the independent claim
(Ans. 6-9).
Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

6
gases and moisture from being trapped in the honeycomb sections (22, 24)
(Ans. 5-6).
Although, like Charmes’ skins (monolithic layers 20, 21) and repair
materials (2, 23) (col. 1, ll. 6-9, 38-45; col. 6, ll. 2-12; col. 9, ll. 12-25),
Jackson’s structural layers (16) can be fiber-reinforced composites (¶ 0040),
Jackson’s structural layers (16) are part of a vented cell structure (10) and
function to provide structural stabilization for honeycomb layers (12, 14)
between them (¶ 0040). Thus, it appears that Jackson’s structural layers (16)
are not comparable to Charmes’ skins (20, 21) but, rather, would be part of
Charmes’ honeycomb piece (24). The Examiner has not established that
Jackson’s perforation of such vented cell structural layers (16) to prevent
gases and/or liquids from being trapped in the honeycomb cells (12, 14)
between them (¶¶ 0040, 0043) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to perforate Charmes’ skins (20, 21) which, Charmes indicates, can be
aircraft wing surfaces (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67).
Hence, we reverse the rejections of claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes
in view of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre
and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon.
Rejections of claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over Charmes in view of Ohliger
and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and Scanlon
We need to address only claim 13, which is the sole independent
claim among claims 13-24.2

2 The Examiner does not rely upon Scanlon for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiency in Charmes and Jackson as to the independent claim
(Ans. 10).
Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

7
Ohliger discloses a sound suppression panel comprising a multilayer
resin-impregnated graphite fiber sheet (16) having perforations which are
completely sealed by glass fabric (52, 54) and partially filled by elastomeric
material (56) (col. 2, ll. 43-54; col. 4, ll. 10-19).
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Ohliger to perforate Charmes’ skins
(monolithic layers 20, 21) to improve their acoustic properties (Ans. 9).
Charmes’ only disclosed repaired object is an aircraft wing (col. 3, l.
30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67). The Examiner has not established that
Charmes and Ohliger would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply
Charmes’ repair process to a structure that would benefit from improved
acoustical properties. Hence, the Examiner’s combination of Charmes and
Ohliger appears to be based on impermissible hindsight in view of the
Appellants’ disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis,
and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the
invention from the prior art”).
We therefore reverse the rejections of claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over
Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of
Ohliger and Scanlon.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 12 over Charmes in
view of Mnich, claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of Jackson,
claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre, claims 18-23 over
Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon, claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over
Appeal 2012-002364
Application 11/441,893

8
Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of
Ohliger and Scanlon are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cam