Ex Parte Ackerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2018

13663543 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/663,543 10/30/2012
63759 7590 06/05/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrice K. Ackerman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12-0614-US-NP 2388
EXAMINER
SALVA TORE, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA TRICE A. ACKERMAN and
DIANE L. HEIDLEBAUGH
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion dissenting by NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a composite laminate structure and a composite
aircraft fuel tank comprising that structure. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A composite laminate structure, comprising:
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
first and second fiber reinforced plastic resin laminates
each having an electrical impedance; and
a structural bondline joining the first and second
laminates together, the bondline having an electrical impedance
substantially matching the electrical impedance of the first and
second laminates.
Pridham
Ackerman
The References
US 6,320,118 Bl
US 2009/0053406 Al
The Rejections
Nov. 20, 2001
Feb.26,2009
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
3, 5-8, and 10-14 over Ackerman and claims 1-14 over Pridham.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 5-17). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. The other claims
stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Ackerman teaches that carbon fiber reinforced aircraft components
"are generally more susceptible to [lightning strike] effects because they are
generally not electrically conductive. As a result, electrical energy from
lightning strikes may be concentrated in a small area, thus creating electrical
arcing and thermal energy within carbon fiber reinforced components" (i-f 2).
"Accordingly, carbon fiber reinforced components of an aircraft may be
provided with electrical discharge features" (i-f 3), e.g., "a conductive mesh
may be incorporated into the laminate plies that make up a carbon fiber
reinforced component" (id.). Ackerman, when performing an aircraft
structural repair wherein two such carbon fiber reinforced components
having electrical discharge features are fastened to each other by an adhesive
2
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
film (300) containing an electrically conductive scrim layer (306), matches
the electrical conductivity of the scrim layer (306) to that of the carbon fiber
reinforced components to reduce or eliminate electrical arcing between the
repair area and the undamaged portion of the carbon fiber reinforced
components (i1i123, 28).
Pridham fastens together aircraft carbon fiber composite structures
using an adhesive that contains a scrim and has an electrical conductivity
comparable to that of the adjacent composite structures to provide a
conductive path for lightning current (col. 2, 11. 7-18, 54---60; col. 3, 11. 12-
23).
The Appellants state:
It is notoriously well known that resistance is the opposition to
a steady electric current. Conductivity is the flip-side of
resistance: how well a steady current conducts. Resistance and
conductivity apply only in the narrow case of direct currents,
such as the lightning strikes described in Ackerman and
Pridham [(App. Br. 14)].
Applicant recognized that while lighting [sic] strikes
themselves are transient DC current flows, the response in the
composite materials have an AC component. Ackerman and
Pridham do not recognize this problem. Thus, while Pridham
and Ackerman deal with the DC conductivity/resistivity
component of a lighting [sic] strike in a composite material,
they do not deal with the AC impedance/reactance component
of a lighting [sic] strike in a composite material.
Knowing this discovered fact regarding AC electrical
behavior of composite materials during a lighting [sic] strike,
Applicant recognized that the materials used in art like Pridham
should be adjusted to account for the difference in properties
between conductivity and impedance. Thus, a real physical
difference arises between formulating a bondline to have
matching conductivities (asserted to be shown in Pridham) and
3
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
forming a bondline to have matching impedances (claimed).
Because the impedance of a substance is fundamentally
different than its conductivity, due to the reactance and
inductance, those of ordinary skill in the art would not assume
that simply because materials described in a reference match
conductivity values that they would also match impedance
values [(App. Br. 15-16)].
The Appellants' Specification states [(Spec. i-f 29)]:
In the case of a lightning strike causing electrical current to
flow through the pre-pregs 24, 26, and through the bondline 22,
the current flow is typically not constant, but varies, similar to
an alternating current (AC). For example, Figure 5 is a graph
showing electrical current flow 37 over time 39, produced by a
typical lightning strike. During an initial time period "A", the
current flow begins with a sharp spike 43 at the initial lightning
attachment 41, then decays slowly during time period "B", may
be somewhat constant during time period "C", and then quickly
increases during time period "D", forming another sharp
spike 45 immediately before detachment at 4 7.
FIG. 5 43
./
41 J"'
A 9 c
39 _/·TIME
45
/
47
.I
{
D
The Appellants' Specification also states [(Spec. i-f 30)]:
The impedance Z is the sum of a resistive component Rx and a
reactive component X, thus, Z = Rx + X. The reactive
component X, or "reactance", includes inductance L and
capacitance C, and represents the opposition of the scrim 32,
4
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
viewed as a circuit, to a change of electric current or voltage
caused by the lightning strike.
Alternating current is "[ e ]lectric current that reverses direction
periodically, usually many times per second," 1 and electrical impedance is
"[t]he total opposition that a circuit presents to an alternating current, equal
to the complex ratio of the voltage to the current in complex notation. " 2
The Appellants' Figure 5 's DC current having dual spikes with slow
decay and somewhat constant current periods between them is not
alternating current and, therefore, appears to have the DC characteristic of
current change being directly proportional to voltage change such that
impedance equals resistance, rather than having the AC characteristic of
reversing polarity causing impedance to differ from resistance due to
inductive reactance (induction of a magnetic field which resists change in
current such that change in current lags change in voltage) or capacitive
reactance (alternating draw and supply of current which resists change in
voltage such that change in voltage lags change in current).
Thus, the Appellants' electrical impedance's inductive and capacitive
reactances appear to be zero, or at least sufficiently close to zero that the
electrical impedance is at least sufficiently close to equaling the resistance
that due to the similarity of the Appellants' structure and those of Ackerman
and Pridham, Ackerman's and Pridham's electrical conductivity matching
(which also matches the inverse of electrical conductivity, i.e., resistance),
appears to at least substantially match the electrical impedances.
1 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 71 (5th ed.
1994).
2 Id. at 649.
5
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14
over Ackerman and claims 1-14 over Pridham are affirmed.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA TRICE A. ACKERMAN and
DIANE L. HEIDLEBAUGH
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the appealed rejections.
The definition of the impedance Z from the Specification, quoted
supra (Op. 4), indicates that the reactive component X includes inductance L
and capacitance C, "and represents the opposition of the scrim 32, viewed as
a circuit, to a change of electric current or voltage caused by the lightning
strike." (Spec., i-f 30, emphasis added.) The finding of fact by the Majority
(Op. 4) that the reactances are sufficiently close to zero that the electrical
impedance is sufficiently close to equalling the resistance may not be
unreasonable in regions B and C, where the current is not changing rapidly
with time. But, it is when the current is changing rapidly with time, as
shown by spikes 43 and 45 in time periods A and D, that the Specification
teaches that the reactances are important. The Majority has, in my view,
come forward with insufficient findings of fact or theoretical analysis to set
Appeal2017-008288
Application 13/663,543
aside or contradict the disclosure in the Specification, which is, in any event,
consistent with the well-known roles of capacitors and inductors in opposing
(damping) changes in voltage and current, respectively.
Appellants have challenged the Examiner's determination that the
adhesives disclosed by Ackerman and by Pridham have the same or
substantially the same electrical impedances of the first and second
laminates. Other than the in my view unsound analysis advanced by the
Majority, and the speculations by the Examiner (Ans. 3--4) based largely on
the asserted potential scope of the term "substantially matching," I find
insufficient evidence or analysis to shift the burden to Appellants to
demonstrate that the electrical impedance of the adhesives described by the
references result in bondlines having electrical impedances that do not
substantially match the electrical impedances of the first and second
laminates.
I conclude Appellants have demonstrated a failure, on the present
record, to establish prima facie cases of obviousness. I would reverse the
rejections, and therefore, with respect, I dissent.
2