The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 20212020006477 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) 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. 15/369,857 12/05/2016 Joshua M. Montgomery 06-0759-US-DIV 8651 63759 7590 10/04/2021 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P.O. BOX 6669 MCKINNEY, TX 75071 EXAMINER VAN SELL, NATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 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): patentadmin@boeing.com ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JOSHUA M. MONTGOMERY, SALVATORE L. LIGUORE, and TUAN Q. CAO __________ Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., 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 27–47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Brief dated February 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2. Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 2 Representative claims 27 and 34 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are emphasized. 27. A method of making a damped composite laminate structure, comprising the steps of: (A) introducing a reinforcement medium comprising a first viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature into a layer of damping material comprising a second viscoelastic material having a second glass transition temperature different than the first glass transition temperature; (B) placing the layer of damping material between first and second layers of fiber reinforced resin material; and, (C) co-curing the layer of damping material with the first and second layers. Appeal Br. 12. 34. The method of claim 27, wherein step (A) includes: providing a web of viscoelastic material as the reinforcement medium having the first glass transition temperature, and impregnating the web with the second viscoelastic material having the second glass transition temperature, where the second glass transition temperature is lower than the first glass transition temperature. Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: (1) claims 27–29, 31–34, 38–41, and 44–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunter;2 and (2) claims 30, 35–37, 42, 43, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunter in view of Deckard.3 2 US 6,764,754 B1, to Hunter et al., issued July 20, 2004 (“Hunter”). 3 US 2003/0094734 A1, to Deckard et al., published May 22, 2003 (“Deckard”). Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 3 B. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds Hunter discloses a damped composite laminate structure comprising structural laminae 20 and damping laminae 10. Final Act. 2.4 Hunter’s Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates the disclosed laminate structure. Hunter’s Figure 3 illustrates a laminate having multiple structural lamina and multiple damping lamina in accordance with an embodiment of Hunter’s invention. The Examiner finds the damping laminae comprises reinforcing fibers such as carbon or glass fibers (corresponding to the claimed reinforcement medium comprising a first viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature) embedded in a resin material such as a thermoset resin (corresponding to the claimed second viscoelastic material having a second glass transition temperature). Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4, 10–11;5 see also Hunter, col. 4, ll. 32–33 (disclosing that each ply of the laminate comprises fiber embedded within a resin material). Relying on column 4, lines 23–67 and column 5, lines 25–67 of Hunter, the 4 Final Office Action dated October 17, 2019. 5 Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2020. Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 4 Examiner finds that the glass transition temperature of the resin material is not only different from the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers but is also lower than the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers. Final Act. 10. The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding that the reinforcing fibers in Hunter’s damping laminae comprise a first viscoelastic material and the resin material in Hunter’s damping lamina comprises a second viscoelastic material. Rather, the Appellant summarily argues that “Hunter does not teach that within the layer of damping material, one material has a glass transition temperature different from a glass transition temperature of [a] second material” as recited in claim 27. Appeal Br. 7 (original emphasis omitted). Similarly, the Appellant argues that Hunter does not disclose that the glass transition temperature of the second material (i.e., the resin material) is lower than the glass transition temperature of the first material (i.e., the reinforcing fibers) as recited in claim 34. Appeal Br. 8. The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds that the resin material of the damping laminae may be a thermoset resin. Final Act. 4. Hunter discloses that the glass transition temperature of the thermoset resin in the damping laminae may be lowered with a plasticizing compound or a rubber compound. Hunter, col. 5, ll. 31–37, 62–67; see also Hunter, col. 5, ll. 50–53 (disclosing that a commercial resin having a depressed glass transition temperature may also be used in the damping laminae). Hunter discloses that the glass transition temperature of the thermoset resin may be lowered to “well below room temperature, for instance 0°F.” Hunter, col. 5, ll. 44– 49. Hunter does not disclose that the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers may be similarly lowered. Rather, Hunter discloses that the reinforcing Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 5 fibers have a high-strength and are selected to meet the load requirements of a particular situation. Hunter, col. 4, ll. 32–36. Thus, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Hunter that the glass transition temperature of the resin material in the damping laminae may not only be different from but may also be lower than the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers in the damping laminae as recited in claims 27 and 34, respectively. Significantly, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness in the rejection of claims 27 and 34. For that reason, the obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 34 based on Hunter is sustained. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any of the remaining claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 9 (arguing that “the arguments with respect to the rejection of independent claim 27 apply to [independent] claim 38”); id. (arguing that “similarly to claim 34, claim 46 also further distinguishes the relationship between the first and second glass transition temperatures”); id. (arguing that Deckard does not cure the deficiencies of Hunter). Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 28–33 and 35–47 also are sustained. 6 Notably, the instant Application and Hunter appear to name a common inventor, Salvatore L. Liguore, and are commonly assigned to The Boeing Company. Therefore, it would appear that the Appellant is in the best position to present evidence demonstrating that the Examiner’s factual findings are erroneous. Appeal 2020-006477 Application 15/369,857 6 C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 27–29, 31– 34, 38–41, 44–46 103(a) Hunter 27–29, 31– 34, 38–41, 44–46 30, 35–37, 42, 43, 47 103(a) Hunter, Deckard 30, 35–37, 42, 43, 47 Overall Outcome 27–47 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation