Airbus Operations (SAS)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2021

2020001484 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
14/548,658 11/20/2014 Philippe Bernadet 5461.118756 2007
24978 7590 01/27/2021
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEGHA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2021 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@gbclaw.net
ptomail@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PHILIPPE BERNADET and
ROMAIN DELAHAYE

Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERREL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 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 real party in interest as Airbus
Operations (SAS). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a fuselage portion formed of
composite material for an aircraft comprising a fuselage skin having at least
two regions of different constant thicknesses, namely a first region of greater
thickness, and a second region of lesser thickness, said regions being
separated from one another by a ply drop-off. (Spec. ¶ 19; Claim 9).
Claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
9. A fuselage portion formed of composite material for an
aircraft, comprising:
a fuselage skin comprising at least two regions of
constant thickness having different thicknesses, comprising
a first region of greater constant thickness, and
a second region of lesser constant thickness, said
regions being connected to one another by a first ply drop
off,
said first ply drop off comprising at least two portions
having different slopes, each slope oriented in a circumferential
direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of said fuselage
portion, wherein the two portions of the first ply drop-off
comprise
a first portion having a greater slope and being arranged
on a circumferential side of the first region and
a second portion having a lesser slope and being arranged
on the same circumferential side of the first region, the first and
second portions being substantially longitudinally adjacent;
and,
at least a first circular frame comprising a first soleplate,
wherein the first soleplate is aligned in the longitudinal
direction with the second portion of said first ply drop-off such
that the first soleplate is applied to said regions of constant
thickness and to the second portion of said first ply drop off.

Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

3
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 15–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Fox (US 2007/0175573 A1, published August 2, 2007)
in view of Rheinfrank (US 2,482,798, issued September 27, 1949) and
Vasey-Glandon (US 7,010,472 B1, issued March 7, 2006).
Appellant argues the subject matter of claim 9 only (Appeal Br. 8–
17). Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 15–17, and 20 will stand or fall with our analysis of
the rejection of claim 9.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the § 103
rejection of claim 9 over Fox in view of Rheinfrank and Vasey-Glandon2 are
located on pages 2 to 4 of the Non-Final Office Action. The Examiner finds
that Fox teaches a fuselage portion as recited in claim 9, except for the
limitation that recites the “first ply drop off comprising at least two portions
having different slopes.” (Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that
Rheinfrank teaches using laminated plies or layers to form an aircraft wing
(Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner annotates Rheinfrank’s Figure 4
(reproduced below) as showing the wing having different number of layers
along its surface such that four portions of the wing have different slopes

2 We focus on the combination of Fox and Rheinfrank in this decision
because Appellant does not dispute the combination of Vasey-Glandon’s
soleplate with Fox (Appeal Br. 15; Non-Final Act. 4). Appellant only argues
that the Examiner does not rely on Vasey-Glandon to teach a ply drop-off
having two portions being oriented in the same direction (Appeal Br. 15).
The Examiner, however, does not rely on Vasey-Glandon to teach two
portions in the ply drop-off extending in two directions (Non-Final Act. 4).
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

4
(Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that the first and second portions on
the annotated Figure 4 are substantially longitudinally adjacent (Non-Final
Act. 3).

Rheinfrank’s Figure 4 as annotated by the Examiner.

The Examiner finds that the relative distance from the thickest region
(80 plies) to the less thick region (15 plies) is greater in the second region on
the annotated Figure 4 than along the first portion (Non-Final Act. 3). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include Rheinfrank’s
ply arrangement in Fox’s composite part because such an arrangement
provides more strength where it is needed (Non-Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown where the applied
prior art teaches a first ply drop off comprising at least two portions having
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

5
different slopes, each slope oriented in a circumferential direction
orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of said fuselage portion (Appeal Br.
10). Appellant argues that the Specification in paragraph 40 and Figures 6,
8, 9, 10, and 11 show the relationship of the portions of the first ply drop-off
and the relative directions such that the first and second portion of the first
ply drop-off are oriented in the same direction (Appeal Br. 11–12).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the assigned portions
in Rheinfrank’s annotated Figure 4 are circumferentially oriented and
orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant contends that
the Examiner’s annotated Figure 4 shows portions of Rheinfrank’s drop off
extending in different directions (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant contends that
the Examiner’s reliance on Fox to teach a first ply drop-off between a region
of first thickness and second region of different thickness oriented in a
circumferential direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the
fuselage portion is misplaced because Fox does not teach two portions in the
first ply drop-off (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant contends that Fox cannot teach
a first ply drop-off with two portions extending in the same direction
(Appeal Br. 14). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasons for
combining Rheinfrank’s teaching with Fox are conclusory (Appeal Br. 15).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained why the combination
would have resulted in the two portions of the first ply drop-off being
oriented in the same direction (Appeal Br. 15).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s rejection is based
on combining Rheinfrank’s teaching that the number plies in a composite
aircraft part, such as a wing, affects the strength of the part with Fox’s
curved aircraft composite part (Non-Final Act. 4). Fox teaches forming
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

6
curved parts such as fuselage skins having regions of differing thickness
(¶¶ 59, 68; Figs. 10, 11). Fox teaches that the curved parts may include
areas of varying or tailored thickness at one or more points along their length
(¶ 59). Fox’s tailoring of the thickness is used to achieve a desired surface
profile for the part (¶ 59). Fox forms ramps 240 between areas of different
thickness (¶ 68, Figs. 10, 11). Fox’s ramps 240 extend in a circumferential
direction as found by the Examiner (Fig. 11; Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4). The
only missing limitation in Fox’s ramps 240 are the two portions having
differing slopes. Rheinfrank teaches at column 5, lines 31–47 that the
graduated thickness of the wing skin provided by the increase in the number
plies provides strength where it is most needed on the wing. The
Examiner’s proposed change is to apply Rheinfrank’s teaching about
tailoring the number of plies in an aircraft composite part in order to achieve
the desired strength where it is needed (Non-Final Act. 4). In other words,
the combined teachings of Fox and Rheinfrank would have suggested
modifying the aircraft composite part to include portions with greater
strength and lesser strength where needed. In this case, Fox’s ramp areas
240 are part of the composite part 236 such that it would have been within
the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan to include in ramp 240 a portion
with more layers for increased strength and steeper slope where necessary
and a portion of ramp 240 with fewer or more spread out layers and more
shallow slope where strength is not as important. Fox’s Figures 10 and 11
show that the ramps extend in the circumferential direction so the variation
in ply depth and strength would have been in the same circumferential
direction.
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

7
Appellant argues the Examiner improperly relies on Rheinfrank’s
drawings to impute scale and specific relationships (Appeal Br. 15).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s analysis about Rheinfrank’s slope in the
first portion and second portion in the annotated Figure 4 on page 3 of the
Non-Final Action is based upon proportions and information that cannot be
discerned from drawings that are admittedly not to scale (Appeal Br. 15–16).
Appellant argues that Rheinfrank’s Figure 4 shows that the layers decrease
by 10 layers, some by 5 layers and some by 2 layers (Appeal Br. 16).
Appellant argues the Examiner improperly finds that Rheinfrank teaches
greater and lesser slopes of two portions are inherent based solely on the not-
to-scale drawings (Appeal Br. 17).
The Examiner acknowledges that Rheinfrank’s figures are not to scale
and the Examiner does not rely on Rheinfrank’s drawing for precise
measurements (Ans. 5). Rather, the Examiner relies on Rheinfrank’s Figure
4 as teaching that more plies are used in areas that require more support and
fewer plies are used in areas requiring less support (Ans. 5). The Examiner
further finds and Appellant does not dispute that “the arrangement of having
the same ply decrease over a different amount of space is known.” (Ans. 5;
Reply Br. generally). Rheinfrank’s Figure 4 shows the relative positioning
the ply layers such that the layers include areas that are not evenly spaced
from one another. Rheinfrank’s Figure 4 shows that the 45 ply, 30 ply, 25
ply, 20 ply, 15 ply, 10 ply and 8 ply layers do not radiate uniformly from the
thickest region 80 ply layer. Each of these layers have bulges (i.e., areas of
greater extent than other areas of the respective layer) shown in hashed lines
that make the respective layer non-uniformly shaped. These non-uniform
layers would have made the slope of the line extending from the 80 ply
Appeal 2020-001484
Application 14/548,658

8
region down to the lesser ply regions less steep in these areas having the
bulge relative to the slope in the areas without the bulge. The Examiner is
not using Rheinfrank’s figures to determine a numerical value for the slope.
Rather, the Examiner is using Rheinfrank’s figures for what they would
reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d
1124, 1127–8 (CCPA 1977).
We find that Appellant has not established that the Examiner
reversibly erred in concluding that Fox, Rheinfrank and Vasey-Glandon
would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 15–
17, and 20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 3, 5–7, 9, 15–17,
20
103 Fox, Rheinfrank,
Vasey-Glandon
2, 3, 5–7,
9, 15–17,
20

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

AFFIRMED