Ex Parte CAWTHORNE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2018

14635272 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/635,272 03/02/2015
120226 7590 12/12/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Howard CAWTHORNE
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.
14-0813 (BOC0/0072US) 6110
EXAMINER
TRIGGS, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2018 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW HOWARD CAWTHORNE,
CHRISTOPHER ELIOT WUMMER, and DANIELLE RAIKO CRAIG
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
Technology Center 3600
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-12, 23, and 25-31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed May 5, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 21,
2017), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 2, 2015), and to the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 21, 2017) and Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Dec. 7, 2016).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "generally relate[s] to a lightweight
thermoplastic/fiber structure for transmitting shear and maintaining the
shape of fairings for wings and rotor blade structures." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1, 23, and 3 1 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.)) is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A support structure, comprising:
a three-dimensional, cross-linked truss structure
comprising a plurality of thermoplastic segments bonded
together, the plurality of thermoplastic segments comprising:
a first segment having a saw tooth shape;
a second segment positioned adjacent the first
segment, the second segment having a saw tooth shape
offset from the first segment;
a third segment positioned adjacent the second
segment, the third segment having a saw tooth shape offset
from the second segment; and
a fourth segment positioned adjacent the third
segment, the fourth segment having a saw tooth shape
offset from the third segment, wherein the first segment
and the second segment are bonded to one another at
intersections thereof, wherein the first segment is bonded
to the third segment at a subset of upper apexes of the first
segment and the third segment, wherein the fourth
segment is bonded to the third segment at intersections
thereof, wherein the fourth segment is bonded to the
second segment at a subset of lower apexes of the second
segment and the fourth segment, and wherein the plurality
of thermoplastic segments are bonded by fusion bonds.
2
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 23-26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mankame et al.
(US 2015/0306861 Al, pub. Oct. 29, 2015) ("Mankame").
Claims 5, 11, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mankame.
Claims 6, 7, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mankame and Kaufmann et al. (US 5,328,744, iss.
July 12, 1994) ("Kaufmann").
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants' contention that the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of the independent claims is in error because
the Examiner has not adequately shown that Mankame discloses the
thermoplastic segments bonded to one another at intersections and apexes as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 23 and 31. See Appeal
Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds that Mankame discloses support structure 34
having a plurality of thermoplastic segments 36 bonded together by fusion
bonds. See Final Act. 3 (citing Mankame ,r,r 2, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33, 36,
Fig. 4). Particularly, the Examiner finds that the "apexes would become
bonded via the fusion bond when the facesheet is fusion bonded" (Final
Act. 4 ), and the "thermoplastic segments are bonded by fusion bonds
through the face plate" in that "the face plate is welded to the truss structure
by the fusion welding such that the individual thermoplastic segments of the
truss are fusion bonded together with the face plate" (Ans. 3--4).
3
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
Mankame discloses an impact beam assembly with a sandwich
construction incorporating a micro-truss structure/core 34, 46, 56 including
polymerized struts 36, a top facesheet 42, 64, and a bottom facesheet 44, 58.
(Mankame ,r,r 21, 25, 26, 31, 44, Figs. 3-5). The core "is formed in place
and directly bonded onto curved surfaces, fasteners and angled faces,
[thereby] eliminat[ ing] the need for costly secondary machining and multi-
stage bonding operations associated with honeycomb cores." Id. ,r 22. The
micro-truss core is shaped directly onto one or both of the facesheets by
placing a photo-monomer solution in a mold in contact with one
of the facesheets, masking off a two-dimensional area on the
opposite surface of the facesheet and mold, exposing the liquid
monomer to collimated UV light sources at specific orientations
through the patterned mask, and then removing the mask, mold
and excess monomer to produce a networked three-dimensional
polymer structure bonded to the surface of one or both of the
face sheets.
Id. ,r 33. In one embodiment where one facesheet "is transparent at the
wavelength of collimated light used to form the micro-truss, then the entire
sandwich structure may be formed in a single operation by exposing the
monomer to the UV light sources through the transparent face sheet," causing
the micro-truss to "form[] and bond[] onto both facesheet surfaces in contact
with the monomer." Id. If both facesheets are not transparent, then "the
adhesive bond between the micro-truss core and the bottom facesheet is
formed directly during a micro-truss formation process." Id. ,r 36.
We do not see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, where
or how Mankame discloses the bonds between the intersections at the first
and second segments, third and fourth segments, and first and fourth
segments, upper apexes of the first and third segments and first and second
4
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
segments, and lower apexes of the first and second segments and second and
fourth segments, as claimed. At best, Mankame discloses the upper nodes,
i.e., apexes, of struts 36, i.e., the segments, bonded to top facesheets 42
and 64 and the lower apexes of struts 36 bonded to bottom facesheets 44
and 58 and thus, arguably, bonded to each other at their upper and lower
apexes 38. See Mankame, Fig. 3-5. But, the Examiner does not address,
direct attention to, or explain whether or how Mankame discloses that the
intersections or apexes 38 of segments 36 are bonded together, with or
without the facesheets, as specified in claims 1, 23, and 31. Thus, we agree
with the Appellants that the Examiner's finding that the segments are
bonded together through the facesheets does not disclose the claimed
bonding between the segments' intersections and specific apexes. See
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, we are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner, and we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 23, and 31,
and dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 24--26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Mankame.
We also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 5-7, 11, and 27-29, which rely on the same finding
regarding Mankame. See Final Act. 6-10.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 23-26, 30,
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is REVERSED.
5
Appeal2017-010948
Application 14/635,272
The Examiner's rejections of claims 5-7, 11, and 27-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6