Ex Parte HATANO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

14220624 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/220,624 03/20/2014
116 7590 06/18/2018
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kohei HATANO
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.
OBA-52454 1173
EXAMINER
LEE,JAEYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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):
patdocket@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOHEI HAT ANO,
MASA YOSHI SUHARA, TOSHIKAZU SHIGETOMI,
and SHUHEI MUTO
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-12 of Application 14/220,624
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (June 6, 2016). Appellants 1
seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(a).
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. We, however, enter a
new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp. is identified as the applicant and real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
BACKGROUND
The '624 Application describes a method for repairing a honeycomb
core sandwich panel which is formed by sandwiching a honeycomb
structured core between skins and an apparatus for performing such repairs.
Spec. 1. Such panels can be used as the outer skin of an aircraft. Id.
Figure 4 of the '624 Application, which depicts such a panel
undergoing repair, is reproduced below.
FIG. 4
30
10A 13 t t t I t t ' t t t t ' t t 1B
I
!
AIR BLOWING DEVICE-~--~,----·'-\- J
60
Figure 4 illustrates a thermal curing step in an embodiment of the
invention described in the '624 Application. Spec. 8.
;
12
As shown in Figure 4, honeycomb core sandwich panel 1 comprises a
structural court 10 held between skins 11 and 12. Id. at 8-9. Core 10
includes partition walls lOA that divide core 10 into a plurality of cells 13.
Id. at 9. Skins 11 and 12 seal each cell 13. Id. Each cell 13 has an airspace.
2
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
Id. Moisture is included in the air trapped in each cell 13. Id. Moisture,
including condensed water, is also retained on partition walls 1 Oa. Id.
Panel 1 can be damaged by, e.g., hail striking the panel. Id. In the
repair process, the portion 14 of panel 1 needing repair is covered by repair
patch 20. 2 Id. at 10. Repair patch 20 is made of a composite material. Id.
Thermosetting adhesive 21A is located between patch 20 and skin 11. Id. at
11. Adhesive layer 21A is cured by heating repair patch 20 with heating
device 30. Id.
In prior art processes, heating device 30 could heat the moisture and
water trapped in cells 13, creating steam. Id. at 2. The resulting high-
pressure in cells 13 can damage or destroy panel 1. Id. To avoid this type of
damage, prior art processes include a lengthy drying step to remove water
from cells 13. Id. at 3.
In the '624 Application's method, the drying step is rendered
unnecessary by cooling the opposite side of panel 10--e.g., by using air
blowing device 60--to prevent the water trapped in cells 13 from becoming
steam. Id. at 20-21. Thus, the method and apparatus described in the '624
Application reduce the time required to repair the honeycomb core sandwich
panel.
Claim 1 is representative of the '624 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix:
1. A method for repairing a honeycomb core sandwich
panel, in which a repair material is disposed on a repair target
portion that exists on a first surface side of the honeycomb core
sandwich panel, the repair material not being disposed on a
2 The process of preparing the damaged panel 10 for application of patch 20
can introduce additional water into cells 13. Spec. 10.
3
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
second surface side of the honeycomb core sandwich panel, the
honeycomb core sandwich panel being formed by sandwiching
a honeycomb structured core with a plurality of cells between
skins, the method comprising:
a heating step of heating, with a heating device
comprising a heater placed over the repair material, the repair
material that is disposed on the repair target portion without
previously drying the honeycomb structured core as part of said
repairing the honeycomb core sandwich panel; and
a cooling step of cooling the honeycomb core sandwich
panel from the second surface side of the honeycomb core
sandwich panel, the cooling step being performed at the same
time as the heating step, the cooling step comprising directly
cooling the second surface side of the honeycomb core
sandwich panel.
Appeal Br. 14 ( emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of McBroom, 3 Choi, 4 and
Haywood. 5 Answer 2.
3 US 6,149,749, issued ofNovember 21, 2000.
4 Heung Soap Choi & Yong Hoon Jang, Bondline strength evaluation of
cocure/precured honeycomb sandwich structures under aircraft hygro and
repair environments, 41 Composites: Part A 1138 (2010).
5 US 2007/0113953 Al, published May 24, 2007.
4
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
2. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of McBroom, Choi, Haywood,
and Alston. 6 Answer 11-12.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the rejections should be reversed
because the Examiner has not had identified an adequate reason for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to combine McBroom, Choi, and Haywood in
the manner described in the Final Action. Appeal Br. 10-12. Because we
agree that the Examiner erred in this regard, we reverse.
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 8, the Examiner found that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled [sic] in
the art at the time [ of] the invention was employed [ sic, to have
employed the] panel of McBROOM having accumulated
moisture inside the cell as taught by CHOI et al. with [a]
cooling device (fan) on the opposite surface to the area under
repair (undamaged side) as taught by HAYWOOD to prevent
the vapor pressure forming by [ sic, from] moisture accumulated
inside the cell while heating to cure the repair material of
McBROOM.
Final Act. 6.
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this
appeal, the record does not contain sufficient articulated reasoning to support
the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
6 US 5,868,886, issued February 9, 1999.
5
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
While McBroom recognizes that resin cure temperatures may be as
high as 180°C, McBroom encourages the use of cure temperatures less than
substantially 100°C. McBroom col. 3, 11. 54---64. McBroom explains that
heating to a temperature in excess of 100°C can generate steam "which may
permeate along the joint line and reduce adhesion between the patch and
structure." Id. Choi also teaches that the use of relatively high curing
temperatures can create damage through vaporization of water accumulated
in the damage zone. Choi 1144--45. As Choi explains, the vaporized water
creates pressure which pushes the skin of the honeycomb core composite
upward and results in local de bonding of the normal skin around the patches.
Id. at 1144. Choi describes moisture removal via a drying step as "very
important to avoid unexpected loss of structural integrity" in areas
neighboring the damage repair zone. Id. at 1145.
Both McBroom and Choi, therefore, recognize that creation of steam
from moisture present in the honeycomb core panel can create problems.
Each, however, describes a solution to the problem. Neither describes or
suggests cooling of the side of the panel opposite the repair zone as a
possible solution.
Haywood-which the Examiner relies upon for describing the cooling
step and apparatus----does not explain why cooling the side opposite the
repair zone provides any benefit. See Haywood ,r 123. Nor does Haywood
describe the cooling as being sufficient to prevent steam formation within
the honeycomb core panel. Id. The Examiner, therefore, has not provided
an objective reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have incorporated Haywood's cooling fan into McBroom's
process. The Examiner's statement of the reasons for combining McBroom,
6
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
Choi, and Haywood is not adequately supported by a sufficient rational
basis.
On the record before us, therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 8. Because we have reversed the obviousness rejection of each of the
independent claims on appeal, we also reverse the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-12.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
For the reasons set forth below, we reject claims 1 and 8 as anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 7 To serve as an anticipatory reference, "the
reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention,
whether it does so explicitly or inherently." In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 1. We reject claim 1 as anticipated by Haywood. Haywood
describes a method for repairing a honeycomb core sandwich panel.
Haywood ,r 123 ( a racing car chassis comprised of aluminum honeycomb
core materials and carbon fiber pre-preg skins). In Haywood's method a
repair material is disposed on a repair target portion on the first side surface
of the honeycomb sandwich panel. Id. (a carbon fiber pre-preg was placed
over the damaged area). Haywood's method comprises a heating step with a
heating device placed over the repair material. Id. (polyurethane foam is
used to trap steam over the patch for a period of four hours). The heating
7 We leave the analysis of dependent claims 2-7 and 9-12 to the Examiner
in the first instance. If prosecution of the '624 Application continues, the
Examiner should consider whether these claims are anticipated by Haywood
or unpatentable as obvious over Haywood, either alone or in combination
with some other reference.
7
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
step is conducted without prior drying step. Id. Haywood's method further
comprises a cooling step carried out at the same time as the heating step. Id.
In Haywood's cooling step, the second surface side of the sandwich panel is
directly cooled by a fan that provides a constant cooling air flow over the
second surface side of the sandwich panel. Id.
Claim 8. We reject claim 8 as anticipated by Haywood. Haywood
describes an apparatus for repairing a honeycomb core sandwich panel.
Haywood ,r 123. Haywood's apparatus comprises a heater configured to be
placed over and heat a repair material that is disposed upon the repair target
portion. Id. (polyurethane foam is used to trap steam in an air-filled void
over the patch). Haywood's apparatus further comprises a cooling device
that cools the honeycomb sandwich panel only from a second surface side of
the sandwich panel. Id. ( cooling fan).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the§ 103 rejections of
claims 1-12. We, however, enter a new ground of rejection with respect to
independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, we reject claims 1 and 8 as
anticipated by Haywood.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b), which provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section
41.50(b) also provides that the appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two
8
Appeal2017-007137
Application 14/220,624
options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of
the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
9