SAFRAN CERAMICS et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2020005376 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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.
15/551,441 08/16/2017 Marie LEFEBVRE 012350-0453851 1004
909 7590 02/02/2021
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
EMRICH, LARISSA ROWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MARIE LEFEBVRE,
DOMINIQUE COUPE,
and FRANCOIS CHARLEUX
__________

Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–5, 13, and 14. Claims 6–12 are also pending but
have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). A hearing was held on December 8, 2020.
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 parties in interest as SAFRAN CERAMICS
and SAFRAN. Appeal Brief dated March 31, 2020 (“App. Br.”), at 2.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

2

Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A fiber structure comprising a plurality of weft layers and a
plurality of warp layers interlinked with three-dimensional or
multilayer weaving, the warp layers being made of a multiple warp
yarns and the weft layers being made of multiple weft yarns, the fiber
structure being woven as a single part and further comprising at least
first and second portions that are adjacent in, and positioned next to
each other along, the warp direction, the first portion presenting
thickness in a direction perpendicular to the warp and weft directions
that is greater than a thickness of the second portion, wherein the weft
layers situated in a core of the first portion of the fiber structure
comprise a plurality of braids, wherein the weft layers extending on
either side of the weft layers comprising the plurality of braids and
going as far as a skin of said first portion comprise yarns, each braid
of the plurality of braids presenting a diameter greater than the
diameter of each of the yarns thereby making it possible to increase
the thickness of the first portion relative to the second portion,
wherein the warp layers in the core of the first portion have a number
of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction and weft direction
that is smaller than a number of warp yarns per unit length in the
warp direction and weft direction of the warp layers in the second
portion.
App. Br. 41.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:2
(1) claims 1 and 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dambrine in view of Anderson, with evidentiary support by Fenner;
(2) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dambrine in view
of Anderson, further in view of Coupe;

2 The prior art is identified on pages 7 and 12–14 of the Final Office Action dated
September 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

3

(3) claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dambrine in view of Anderson, with evidentiary support by Kumar;
(4) claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dambrine in
view of Anderson and Coupe, with evidentiary support by Fenner;
(5) claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dambrine in view of Anderson and Coupe, with evidentiary support by Kumar;
and
(6) claims 1–5, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventors regard as the invention.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (6)
The Examiner concludes that the following limitation recited in claim 1 is
indefinite:
wherein the warp layers in the core of the first portion have a number
of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction and the weft
direction that is smaller than a number of warp yarns per unit length in
the warp direction and weft direction of the warp layers in the second
portion.
Ans. 19.3
The Appellant’s Figure 2A, reproduced below, is a weft section view of a
plurality of warp layers in portion 203, corresponding to the claimed first portion,
and portion 204, corresponding to the claimed second portion. Spec. 7, ll. 1–7; id.
at 13, l. 3–14, l. 2; id. at 14, ll. 13–15. There appears to be no dispute on this
record that, as illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 2A, reproduced below, “the weft

3 Examiner’s Answer dated May 15, 2020.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

4

direction is defined as going into and out of the page, and the warp direction is
defined as from the left to the right of the page.” Ans. 26.

Appellant’s Figure 2A is a weft section view
of the fiber structure illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 1.
The Appellant discloses that fiber structure 200, depicted in the Appellant’s
Figure 2A, is woven with 12 layers of warp yarns C1 to C12. Spec. 14, ll. 13–15.
The Examiner finds that a single warp layer (e.g., C1) consists of all of the single
warp yarns in that layer as illustrated in the series of Figures 2A–2X. Ans. 28
(explaining that “the warp layer C1 is not represented only by the yarn shown in
FIG. 2A, but is represented collectively by all the yarns labeled as C1 in FIGs. 2A
to 2X”); see also Spec. 7, ll. 5–7 (disclosing that Figures 2A to 2X are weft section
views showing in part twenty-four successive planes of a weave for a portion of
fiber structure 200 illustrated in Figure 1). As for warp layers C6 and C7 in
portion 204, the Appellant discloses that those warp layers are “burst” or “split” in
portion 203. Spec. 14, ll. 15–18; Spec. 4, ll. 8–23. That is, warp yarn C61 in
Figure 2A and warp yarn C62 in Figure 2B, for example, comprise part of warp
layer C6. Likewise, warp yarn C71 in Figure 2A and warp yarn C72 in Figure 2B,
for example, comprise part of warp layer C7.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

5

The Examiner explains that “[t]he limitation [at issue] is indefinite because it
is unclear how a number of warp yarns per unit length is determined in both the
warp and weft directions. As such it is unclear what structure is required to meet
the aforementioned limitation.” Ans. 19 (original emphasis omitted).
The Appellant argues that the limitation at issue “means that the density of
warp yarns in the core of the first portion measured in the warp direction and the
weft direction is smaller than the density of warp yarns in the second portion
measured in the warp direction and the weft direction.” App. Br. 6 (emphasis
added). Referring to Figures 2A to 2X, the Appellant argues that the instant
Application discloses that “[t]he warp yarn layers present in the core of the portion
203 of greater thickness . . . present a smaller count than the layers of warp yarns
present in the portion 204 of decreasing thickness.”4 App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 13,

4 The Appellant argues that “[t]hroughout the Examiner’s analysis of claim 1, the
Examiner keeps improperly imputing the words ‘count’ into the claim language.”
App. Br. 5. The Appellant argues that “[t]he word ‘count’ is not recited in claim 1,
and, therefore, it is utterly improper to introduce it in order to determine whether
the above recitation of claim 1 is indefinite or not.” App. Br. 5–6 (emphasis
omitted). Nonetheless, the Appellant points out that “[t]he term ‘count’ is used [in
the Specification] to designate the number of yarns per unit length in the warp
direction and in the weft direction.” App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 13, ll. 27–33); see
also Ans. 24 (finding that “[t]he instant specification uses the phrase ‘the number
of yarns per unit length in the warp direction and the weft direction’ only in the
definition of ‘count’”); Spec. 14, ll. 10–12 (disclosing that “[t]he term ‘count’ is
used herein to designate the number of yarns per unit length in the warp direction
and in the weft direction”). Therefore, we find that the Examiner’s reliance on the
term “count” to describe “the number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp
direction and the weft direction,” as recited in claim 1, appears to be consistent
with the Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 24 (explaining that reliance on the term
“count” or “its extended definition” is appropriate); see also Amendment dated
November 27, 2019 (adding the word “warp” to “yarns per unit length”). That
being said, we do not use the word “count” in our analysis of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

6

ll. 27–33) (emphasis added). To illustrate, the Appellant directs our attention to an
annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A, which is reproduced below. App.
Br. 8.

Appellant’s annotated Figure 2A is a weft section view
showing portions 203 and 204 of fiber structure 200.
The Appellant argues:
If the depicted arrow schematically represents a (same) unit
length1, it can be seen that along this unit length, there is a single warp
yarn in this cross section of the core (left figure), whereas there are
two warp yarns in the second portion (right figure). Therefore, in
Figure 2A, it is shown that “the warp layers in the core of the first
portion have a number of yarns per unit length in the warp direction . .
. that is smaller than a number of yarns per unit length in the warp
direction . . . of the warp layers in the second portion.”
_________________
1 Note that if the length of the arrow changes, the same conclusion
would be reached (albeit with a multiplication factor) since the
spacing between two warp yarns is larger in the core of the first
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

7

portion than in the second portion (i.e. the density of warp yarns is
smaller in the core of the first portion than in the second portion)[.]
App. Br. 7; see also App. Br. 9–10 (arguing that regardless of the unit length used
or where it is measured, the claim limitation at issue is satisfied).
The Examiner finds that the unit length, depicted by the arrow in Appellant’s
annotated Figure 2A, not only crosses two warp yarns in second portion 204 but
also crosses two warp layers. Ans. 28. Based on the language in claim 1, the
Examiner finds that “the ordinary artisan would not have known to compare the
number of warp yarns in a single warp layer in the core of the first portion to the
number of warp yarns in multiple warp layers in the second portion.” Ans. 29.
Moreover, the Examiner questions whether a unit length, as represented by the
Appellant’s arrow, crossing the same warp layer twice, rather than two different
warp layers as illustrated above, would be considered one or two warp yarns. Ans.
41.
Claim 1 recites:
wherein the warp layers in the core of the first portion have a number
of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction and the weft
direction that is smaller than a number of warp yarns per unit length
in the warp direction and weft direction of the warp layers in the
second portion.
App. Br. 41 (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s findings reveal that the limitation reproduced above may be
interpreted several ways. The limitation may be interpreted as reciting that each
warp layer in the core of the first portion, individually, has a number of warp yarns
per unit length in the warp direction and the weft direction that is smaller than a
number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction and weft direction of
that same warp layer in the second portion. The limitation also may be interpreted
as reciting that each warp layer in the core of the first portion, individually, has a
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

8

number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction and the weft direction
that is smaller than a number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp direction
and weft direction of a different warp layer in the second portion. Finally, the
limitation may be interpreted as reciting that the warp layers, collectively, in the
core of the first portion have a number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp
direction and the weft direction that is smaller than a number of warp yarns per
unit length in the warp direction and weft direction of the warp layers, collectively,
in the second portion. Therefore, claim 1 is ambiguous. See In re Packard, 751
F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“As the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’
and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to
ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.”).
Moreover, claim 1 recites that the “number of warp yarns per unit length” is
measured “in the warp direction and weft direction.” App. Br. 41. We find that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the warp direction
corresponds to the x-axis and the weft direction corresponds to the y-direction, thus
defining an area. See, e.g., Dambrine Fig. 2.5 In annotated Figure 2A, however,
the Appellant identifies the claimed “unit length” as a single line in the warp
direction (i.e., along the x-axis). See, e.g., App. Br. 8; see also Ans. 30 (finding
that the Appellant’s annotated figures do not take into account the number of warp
layers in the weft direction). Thus, it is unclear whether the limitation “a number
of warp yarns per unit length,” recited in claim 1, refers to a number of warp yarns
along a single line in the warp direction or a number of warp yarns within an area
bounded by a line in the warp direction (i.e., the x-axis) and a line in the weft

5 US 2005/0084377 A1, published April 21, 2015.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

9

direction (y-axis).6,7 See Ans. 31 (explaining that it is “not clear whether or not
warp yarns crossed by a weft direction unit length should be taken into account”).
Turning to the claimed “unit length” itself, the Appellant argues that
regardless of the length of the unit length or where it is located, the number of
warp yarns per unit length will always be smaller in the core of first portion 203
than in second portion 204 as claimed (albeit with a proportionality factor). App.
Br. 9–10. The Examiner, however, annotates the Appellant’s Figure 2A to show
that the unit length may not meet the claim limitation based on the location of the
unit length within the first and second portions of the fiber structure. Ans. 37. In
the first two annotated figures, reproduced below, the Examiner shows that,
contrary to the Appellant’s arguments, the arrow crosses the same number of warp
yarns in first portion 203 and second portion 204.

6 The Examiner finds that “a diagonal unit length, which crosses both the warp
direction and the weft direction at an angle, is within the scope of claim 1 ‘in the
warp and weft direction.’” Ans. 30, n.1. The Appellant, however, does not show a
diagonal unit length in annotated Figure 2A.
7 We also note that the Appellant uses the terms “unit length” and “density”
synonymously. See, e.g., App. Br. 6 (rephrasing the claim limitation at issue as
“the density of warp yarns in the core of the first portion measured in the warp
direction and the weft direction is smaller than the density of warp yarns in the
second portion measured in the warp direction and the weft direction” (emphasis
added)). A density measurement, however, also includes a measurement along the
z-axis, which, in this case, would correspond to the thickness of portions 203 and
204.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

10

An annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A showing a
unit length (represented by an arrow) crossing a single
warp yarn C61 in the core of first portion 203.8

An annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A showing
the same unit length shown in the previous annotated figure

8 Reproduced from page 32 of the Examiner’s Answer. See also Ans. 35–36.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

11

crossing a single warp yarn C6 in the second portion 204.9

Moreover, the Appellant discloses that core 2031 is situated between
opposite skins 2032 and 2033. Spec. 12, ll. 5–7; see also Ans. 37 (citing Spec. 12,
ll. 3–13). Using the same unit length as in the previous two annotated figures, the
Examiner shows, in annotated Figure 2A reproduced below, that, contrary to claim
1, the arrow in a portion of core 2031 crosses two warp yarns in first portion 203,
compared to one warp yarn in second portion 204, as illustrated in the annotated
figure above. Ans. 37.

An annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A showing
the same unit length shown in the previous two annotated
figures where the unit length crosses two warp yarns
in the core of first portion 203.10
Next, the Examiner annotates the Appellant’s Figure 2A to show that a
particular unit length may not meet the claim limitation at issue based on its length

9 Reproduced from page 33 of the Examiner’s Answer. See also Ans. 35–36.
10 Reproduced from page 37 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

12

alone. Ans. 38. In the following two annotated figures, the Examiner shows an
arrow crossing the same number of warp yarns in first portion 203 and second
portion 204.

An annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A showing a short
unit length crossing one warp yarn in the core of first portion 203.11

11 Reproduced from page 38 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

13

An annotated portion of the Appellant’s Figure 2A showing a short
unit length crossing one warp yarn in second portion 204.12
Thus, as illustrated above, the number of warp yarns per unit length, at least
in the warp direction, is not necessarily smaller in the core of the first portion than
in the second portion as recited in claim 1. For that reason, the claims on appeal do
not distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as their
invention.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that claim 1 is indefinite. Therefore,
the rejection of claims 1–5, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is sustained.
2. Rejections (1)–(5)
The Appellant argues that Dambrine, either alone or in combination with
Anderson, Fenner, and Coupe, does not disclose, teach or suggest that
the warp layers in the core of the first portion have a number of warp
yarns per unit length in the warp direction and weft direction that is
smaller than a number of warp yarns per unit length in the warp

12 Reproduced from page 39 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

14

direction and weft direction of the warp layers in the second portion
[as recited in claim 1].
App. Br. 17, 34. For the reasons discussed above, that limitation renders claim 1
indefinite.
Because claim 1 is indefinite, any rejection over prior art requires
speculation as to the scope of the claim. We decline to engage in such speculation.
Therefore, the obviousness rejections on appeal are not sustained. See In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing obviousness rejection because it
was based on speculation as to the meaning of claim terms and assumptions as to
claim scope). It should be understood that our decision is based solely on the
indefiniteness of claim 1 and is not based on the merits of the obviousness
rejections on appeal.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed13
1, 3–5 103 Dambrine,
Anderson, Fenner
1, 3–5
2 103 Dambrine,
Anderson, Coupe
2
13, 14 103 Dambrine,
Anderson, Kumar
13, 14
1–5 103 Dambrine,
Anderson, Coupe,
Fenner
1–5

13 As explained above, our reversal of the obviousness rejections is based solely on
the indefiniteness of claim 1 and is not based on the merits of any of the
obviousness rejections on appeal.
Appeal 2020-005376
Application 15/551,441

15

13, 14 103 Dambrine,
Anderson, Coupe,
Kumar
13, 14
1–5, 13, 14 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 13, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 13, 14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED