Ex Parte Gevers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13982914 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)

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.
13/982,914 02/17/2014 Ralf Gevers 5446.114378 7706
24978 7590 08/24/2017
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
ptomail @ gbclaw. net
docket @ 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 RALF GEVERS
Appeal 2016-007369
Application lS/982,9141
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
12 and 14—23. Claims 1—11 and 13 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant identifies Airbus Operations GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed July 31, 2013 (“Spec.”);
the Final Action issued August 31, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action
issued October 30, 2015 (“Advis. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed January 29,
2016 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer issued June 2, 2016 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed July 28, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-007369
Application 13/982,914
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a peelable adapter element for balancing
out at least one of assembly and component tolerances. Claim 12,
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
12. A peelable adapter element for balancing out at least one
of assembly and component tolerances, having a core body
defining a minimum dimension and at least one stack of films
bound to the core body defining a maximum dimension, the
stack of films comprising a plurality of peelable metal films
joined together by a respective binder film, wherein the core
body is a plastic matrix with integrated fiber reinforcement, the
fiber reinforcement comprising at least one of carbon fibers,
glass fibers, textile fibers and natural fibers, and wherein the
fibers are arranged in the plastic matrix in such a way that
the plastic matrix exhibits a lateral region completely free of
fibers.
Appeal Br. A-l (Claim App’x).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
REFERENCES
on appeal:
Moscone et al. US 2009/0044463 Al Feb. 19, 2009
(“Moscone”)
Gastel US 8,518,839 B2 Aug. 27, 2013
(“Gastel ’839”)
Gastel3
(“Gastel ’233”)
EP 0 667 233 Al Aug. 16, 1995
3 The Examiner employs the English language machine translation of Gastel
’233, to which Appellant does not object. See Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-007369
Application 13/982,914
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 12, 14—20, and 22—23 over
Gastel ’233 in view of Gastel ’839; and (2) claim 21 over Gastel ’233 in
view of Gastel ’839 and further in view of Moscone. Final Act. 2, 4; Appeal
Br. 4.
OPINION
In disputing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 14—23,
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 12.4 Appeal Br. 8. The
remaining claims, which depend on claim 12, stand or fall with claim 12.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 12 requires, inter alia, “the core body is a plastic matrix with
integrated fiber reinforcement, . . . wherein the fibers are arranged in the
plastic matrix in such a way that the plastic matrix exhibits a lateral region
completely free of fibers.” The Examiner relies on Gastel ’839 as teaching
this limitation, citing Figure 2 of the reference. Final Act. 3^4.
Appellant argues that Gastel ’839 fails to disclose or suggest, in any
prose or drawings, that the lateral region of the plastic matrix should be
completely free of fibers, citing Figure 3 of the reference. Appeal Br. 10—
11. Appellant contends that Figure 3 shows “the woven fibers reach a lateral
(or edge) region of the sheet 4, at least at the left front comer (the other
comers and edges not being shown, or otherwise described as differing from
the shown left front comer).” Id.
Figures 2 and 3 of Gastel ’839 are reproduced below:
4 Appellant does not address the separate rejection of dependent claim 21.
3
Appeal 2016-007369
Application 13/982,914
2
4
4
__yL
n
Figure 2 shows a cross-section view of the laminated product of the
invention. Gastel ’839, col. 3,11. 26—28. Figure 3 is a perspective view of a
fabric impregnated with laminated product. Id., col. 3,11. 29-30. Each sheet
(4) consists of fabric of woven fibers (12) impregnated throughout their
thickness with a mass of adhesive material (8). Id., col. 3,11. 44—51.
The Examiner finds that the fabric fibers in Gastel ’839 are
completely surrounded by the resin material, which comprises 40% to 60%
of the volume of the fabric. Ans. 6 (citing Gastel ’839, col. 4,11. 11—27).
Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Figure 3 of Gastel ’839 “still
shows ends of the fibers fully exposed from the lateral regions,” “40%—60%
fabric volume is not sufficient to completely surround the fibers,” and
“Gastel ’839 shows the fibers surrounded by the resin only on the upper and
lower regions of the layers, not the lateral or side regions.” Reply Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, as it relies solely on
Appellant’s interpretation of Figure 3 of the reference. Figure 3 is a
perspective view of the product, which shows the fabric enveloped by the
4
Appeal 2016-007369
Application 13/982,914
adhesive material. Gastel ’839 Fig. 3; col. 3,11. 26—32. Appellant’s
insistence that Gastel ’839’s product must have ends of fabric fibers
exposed, based on Figure 3, is inconsistent with text in the reference, which
states:
Pieces of fibrous fabric (12)... are first cut out and set to the
desired dimensions. Each of them will constitute one sheet of
laminated product after treatment.
The piece of fabric is then subjected to a process of
impregnation by the adhesive material (8). One of the
important aspects of the invention is to obtain a good
impregnation of the fibrous fabric by the adhesive substance,
i.e., an impregnation as complete as possible, by which all the
fabric’s fibers are completely surrounded by a matrix of
adhesive material and all interstices (14) of fabric (12) are
completely filled up, as can be seen in FIG. 3.
Gastel ’839, col. 4,11. 8—18. Thus, the reference conveys that fabric is cut,
then impregnated with adhesive as completely as possible such that all of
the fabric’s fibers are completely surrounded by the adhesive material. Id.
That the fabric is “completely surrounded” after being cut indicates that all
portions of the fabric, including the ends, are surrounded by adhesive. For
the purposes of § 103, a reference is prior art for all that is discloses. Symbol
Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The
disclosure of Gastel ’839 is not limited to Figure 3.
Moreover, Appellant’s contention that “40%-60% fabric volume [of
adhesive] is not sufficient to completely surround the fibers” is mere
attorney argument, which cannot make up for the lack of evidence in the
record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
5
Appeal 2016-007369
Application 13/982,914
Appellant has not shown reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting
claim 12 as obvious over Gastel ’233 in view of Gastel ’839. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 14—23.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 14—
23 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)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
6