The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2020

2019004934 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2020)

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.
15/367,337 12/02/2016 Gary E. Georgeson 13-1307-CNT 8551
64722 7590 06/29/2020
OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C.
570 LEXINGTON AVENUE
FLOOR 19
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
PLESZCZYNSKA, JOANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2020 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):
JBROITMAN@OCFBLAW.COM
patentadmin@boeing.com
patentdockets@ocfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GARY E. GEORGESON
and KENNETH H. GRIESS
____________

Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1–10.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal. 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. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to systems and methods for repairing
structures comprised of composite materials, such as a carbon fiber/epoxy
composite (Spec. 1:4–5). According to the Specification, composite
materials are increasingly used in aircraft structures because they provide
increased strength and rigidity along with reduced weight and parts count
(id. at 1:7–10). The Specification describes repair systems and methods
which are said to shorten the time it takes to repair an aircraft’s composite
structure (id. at 1:15–2:5).
Claims 1 and 7 are representative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. A composite structure comprising:
a parent structure having a depression, said parent
structure being made of fiber-reinforced composite material;
an insert in said depression, said insert being made of
fiber-reinforced composite material; and
a patch bonded by an adhesive to one side of said parent
structure and one side of said insert, said patch being made of
fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein said patch
comprises a central portion and a multiplicity of pre-stressed
members that extend outwardly from an outermost portion of
said central portion of said patch, wherein said central portion
of said patch is directly bonded to said one side of said insert
by the adhesive therebetween, and each of said multiplicity of
pre-stressed members is directly bonded to opposing portions
of said one side of said parent structure by the adhesive
therebetween, each pre-stressed member of said multiplicity
being in a flexed state with a potential to deform toward an
unflexed state in the event that a strength of the bond between
that pre-stressed member and an opposing portion of said one
side of said parent structure becomes zero.
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

3
7. A composite structure comprising:
a parent structure having a depression, said parent
structure being made of fiber-reinforced composite material;
an insert in said depression, said insert being made of
fiber-reinforced composite material; and
a patch bonded by an adhesive to one side of said parent
structure and one side of said insert, said patch being made of
fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein said patch
comprises a central portion and a multiplicity of pre-stressed
members that extend outwardly from an outermost portion of
said central portion of said patch and are separated by slits,
wherein said central portion of said patch is directly bonded to
said one side of said insert by the adhesive therebetween, and
each of said multiplicity of pre-stressed members is directly
bonded to opposing portions of said one side of said parent
structure by the adhesive therebetween and has the property
that at least a portion of the pre-stressed member will deform
toward an unflexed state in the event that a bond strength
between said portion of said pre-stressed member of said
multiplicity and an opposing portion of said one side of said
parent structure changes from a non-zero value to zero.
Appeal Br. 14, 15–16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lindgren et al. (US 8,568,545 B2; issued Oct. 29,
2013, “Lindgren”), in view of Hyman (US 4,100,712; issued July 18,
1978), and further in view of Grosskrueger et al. (US 6,656,299 B1;
issued Dec. 2, 2003, “Grosskrueger”) (Final Act. 2–5; 6–9).
2. Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lindgren, in view of Hyman, Grosskrueger, and
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

4
further in view of Cologna et al. (US 4,820,564; issued Apr. 11, 1989,
“Cologna”) (Final Act. 5–6; 9–10).
3. Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lindgren, in view of Hyman, Grosskrueger, and
further in view of Buckland (US 3,855,881; issued Dec. 24, 1974)
(Final Act. 6; 10).
Appellant offers separate arguments in support of independent claims
1 and 7 (Appeal Br. 7–12). These arguments are substantially similar and
will be discussed together below.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following for
emphasis.
A. Rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over the
combination of Lindgren, Hyman, and Grosskrueger.
1. Claims 1 and 7
With respect to claims 1 and 7, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding Lindgren, Hyman, and Grosskrueger are located on
pages 2–5 and 6–9 of the Final Office Action.
Figure 1 of Lindgren, reproduced below, illustrates a sectional view of
a laminated composite structure in which an area to be removed from the
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

5
structure (indicated by the dashed lines) includes undesired dented or
degraded areas:

Lindgren’s figure 1 illustrates composite structure 20 in which one or
more volumes 30, 30a of material may be removed to eliminate dented or
degraded areas 24a, 24b (Lindgren 2:61–64; 3:28–52).
Figure 2 of Lindgren, reproduced below, illustrates a completed
restoration in which material has been removed and replaced by a bonded
patch:

Lindgren’s figure 2 illustrates composite structure 20 in which volume
30, shown in Lindgren’s figure 1, is removed and replaced by pre-formed
composite patch 34 bonded to composite structure 20 (id. at 2:65–67; 3:56–
62).
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Lindgren’s composite structure 20
(i.e., the claimed “parent structure”) and composite patch 34 (i.e., the
claimed “insert”) teach each component of the subject matter of claims 1 and
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

6
7, with the exception of the claimed “patch” and its requisite features (Final
Act. 2–3, 6–7).
The Examiner finds that Hyman teaches or suggests the remaining
component missing from Lindgren (id. at 3, 7–8). Figure 1 of Hyman,
reproduced below, illustrates a side view of a hole repair kit:

Figure 1 of Hyman illustrates, inter alia, slightly flexible aluminum
plate 10 with apertures 12 and partial radial slits 14 (Hyman 2:20; 2:35–45).
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

7
Hyman’s figure 4, reproduced below, illustrates a central sectional
view through a hole in a wall, which has been repaired by use of a repair kit:

Figure 4 of Hyman illustrates wall W and the repair of hole H through
use of aluminum plate 10 with paste P, which are compressed by toggle nut
26 and reaction member 20 using bolt 24 (id. at 2:25–27; 2:45–68).
The Examiner finds that
Hyman teaches a patch bonded by an adhesive – element
P – to one side of the parent structure, and one side of an insert
– part of adhesive P within the hole – wherein the patch
comprises a central portion and a multiplicity of pre-stressed
members . . . that extend outwardly from an outermost portion
of the central portion of the patch, wherein the central portion
of the patch is directly bonded to the one side of the insert by
the adhesive therebetween, and each of the multiplicity of pre-
stressed members is directly bonded to opposing portions of the
one side of the parent structure by the adhesive therebetween
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

8
. . . , wherein each of the pre-stressed members of the
multiplicity is in a flexed state.
(Final Act. 4, 7–8 (emphases added)).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided
Lindgren’s structure with Hyman’s patch to provide support to the repaired
area (id. at 4, 8).
Appellant argues that Hyman’s aluminum plate 10 neither discloses
nor suggests the claimed “patch” because paste P is actually a patch (Appeal
Br. 9). Appellant argues that, without Hyman’s paste P, aluminum plate 10
cannot close or cover the hole H seen in wall W (id. (citing Hyman, Fig. 4)).
According to Appellant, the Examiner clearly erred because aluminum plate
10 “is placed inside of the repaired composite material and is not even
visible when the repair has been completed” (Appeal Br. 11).
Appellant’s arguments are misplaced because they fail to address the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “patch.”
“During examination ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The best source for
understanding a technical term is the specification from which it arose,
informed, as needed, by the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Dictionary definitions may be used in
tandem with the specification and prosecution to enlighten the broadest
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

9
reasonable interpretation of a claim term. In re Trans Tex. Holdings Corp.,
498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Our review of the Specification reveals that it does not provide any
special meaning for the claim term “patch.” Furthermore, the Webster’s
New World College Dictionary defines “patch” as “a piece of material
applied to cover or mend a hole or tear or to strengthen a weak spot.”2
Accordingly, “patch,” construed in the absence of a special meaning from
the Specification and understood by the plain meaning of that word,
encompasses any material capable of (i) covering or mending a hole or
(ii) strengthening a weak spot. Therefore, in the context of a structural
component, the dictionary definition further supports the Examiner’s
position that a “patch” encompasses Hyman’s aluminum plate 10, which
covers hole H seen in wall W,3 while strengthening wall W’s weak spot (see
Hyman, Fig. 4). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hyman’s aluminum
plate 10 discloses or suggests the claimed “patch” within the meaning of
claims 1 and 7. See In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959) (holding
that, “[r]egardless of the terminology used by the reference, claims are
obvious where the prior art discloses or suggests the claimed structure”).
Appellant argues that Grosskrueger’s repair method of filling a recess
with an adhesive potting compound is distinguished from the method of
forming the structure recited in claims 1 and 7 (Appeal Br. 9–10). In
particular, Appellant contends that Lindgren places a composite patch in a

2 Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2014) available at
https://www.yourdictionary.com/patch.
3 Contrary to Appellant’s position that a patch must be seen post-repair, we
agree with the Examiner that “there is no requirement that ‘a patch’ is visible
when the repair is completed” (Ans. 14).
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

10
depression, whereas Hyman fills hole H with paste P and uses aluminum
plate 10 to support the paste during drying (id. at 10). According to
Appellant, neither Lindgren nor Grosskrueger discloses a patch having the
claimed structure, wherein a central portion of the patch is bonded to an
insert in a depression of the parent structure, the patch having pre-stressed
flexible members bonded to the parent structure (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner does
not rely on Grosskrueger to teach a method of repair or the claimed structure
(see Ans. 13). Rather, the Examiner finds that Grosskrueger teaches a fiber-
reinforced composite patch for use in aircraft (Final Act. 4, 8). The
Examiner correctly concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have formed Hyman’s patch out
of fiber-reinforced composite material because selecting a known material
based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious design choice (id.).
Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments attack Lindgren, Hyman, and
Grosskrueger individually instead of addressing what the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Appellant argues that Lindgren fails to suggest that insert 34 in the
depression requires the additional support from Hyman’s aluminum plate 10
(Appeal Br. 11). Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to
have adhered Hyman’s aluminum plate 10 and paste P to Lindgren’s
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

11
composite patch 34, which is “made of composite material, to reinforce an
already repaired composite structure” (Reply Br. 2).
However, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland
KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006), our
reviewing Court stated:
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a
suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but
when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the
combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal—and even
common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In
such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary
artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable
of combining the prior art references.
Appellant does not explain why adhering Hyman’s aluminum plate 10
and paste P to Lindgren’s composite patch 34 would have been beyond the
level of skill in the art or yield unpredictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417 (“If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.”). Hyman explicitly discloses that aluminum plate 10
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

12
“remains permanently in position and thus maintains support of the repaired
area of the wall” (Hyman 3:15–17). In our view, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have viewed Hyman’s teaching as a reason to make Lindgren’s
composite structure 20 more desirable because it is stronger.
Appellant argues that Hyman’s through-hole repair kit is non-
analogous art to Lindgren’s depression repair (Appeal Br. 12). In particular,
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to add Hyman’s
aluminum plate 10, which is designed to flex for passage through a through-
hole to Lindgren’s structure having no through-hole (id.).
We are not persuaded by these arguments because each of the relied-
upon references are either in the field of Appellant’s endeavor or are
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Appellant was
concerned. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986‒87 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner has
made reasoned findings establishing that Lindgren and Hyman are each
directed to repairing inconsistencies in wall-like structures (Ans. 15). For
the reasons set forth in the Answer, we are not persuaded by Appellant that
any of the allegedly non-analogous features would have been viewed by one
of ordinary skill in the art as reasons not to combine Lindgren’s and
Hyman’s teachings.
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

13
B. Rejections of claims 3 and 9 as unpatentable over the combination of
Lindgren, Hyman, Grosskrueger, and Cologna.
With regard to claims 3 and 9, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding Lindgren, Hyman, Grosskrueger, and Cologna are
located on pages 5–6 and 9–10 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 3 and 9 also rely on the same
unpersuasive arguments made regarding claims 1 and 3 (Appeal Br. 12–13).
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 3
and 9.
C. Rejections of claims 6 and 10 as unpatentable over the combination of
Lindgren, Hyman, Grosskrueger, and Buckland.
With regard to claims 6 and 10, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding Lindgren, Hyman, Grosskrueger, and Buckland are
located on pages 6 and 10 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 6 and 10 also rely on the
same unpersuasive arguments made regarding claims 1 and 7 (Appeal Br.
13).
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 6
and 10.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8
103 Lindgren, Hyman,
Grosskrueger
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Appeal 2019-004934
Application 15/367,337

14
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3, 9 103 Lindgren, Hyman,
Grosskrueger,
Cologna
3, 9
6, 10 103 Lindgren, Hyman,
Grosskrueger,
Buckland
6, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–10
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