Ex Parte Hayden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2016

12263966 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/263,966 11103/2008 Paul Trevor Hayden
87853 7590 06/14/2016
Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
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.
285564-3/GEC-1262 9243
EXAMINER
FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL TREVOR HAYDEN, DAVID ANTHONY WHILEY,
and PETER ANTHONY BROOME
Appeal2014-006178
Application 12/263,966 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-14, 16, and 33--45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art (Spec., paras. 6-9, Fig. 2
(hereinafter "AP A")) and Michael (US 4,063,838, iss. Dec. 20, 1997). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest by assignment is
Blade Dynamics Limited. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006178
Application 12/263,966
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An end connection comprising:
a uni-axial composite material; and
at least one insert for forming an end connection in the uni-
axial composite material, the at least one insert comprising a
sleeve, wherein the sleeve comprises a plurality of fibres having
a multi-axial arrangement, wherein at least a portion of the
interior surface of the sleeve comprises a thread formation, the at
least one insert being embedded within the uni-axial composite
material.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner's rejection relies on a finding that Michael discloses a
"sleeve comprises a plurality of fibres having a multi-axial arrangement," as
recited in independent claims 1 and 16. See Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 3--4, 6-7,
9. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that threads 16 of Michael's core
fragment 10 correspond to the claimed sleeve. Final Act. 3, 6. However, the
Appellants persuasively argue that threads 16 are disclosed as having "'a
regularly formed thread[s]' such as may be 'formed by a thread dye"' and
are not disclosed as including a plurality of fibres having a multi-axial
arrangement. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Michael, col. 4, 11. 4--16). In the Answer,
the Examiner responds to the Appellants' argument by identifying a
different structure of Michael's disclosure to correspond to the claimed
sleeve. Indeed, the Examiner finds that Michael's sock 18, rather than
threads 16, corresponds to the claimed sleeve. See Ans. 3--4 (annotating
Figs. 9, 10), 6-7, 9; see also Reply Br. 2. The Appellants persuasively argue
that sock 18 "is a 'longitudinal sock of untwisted glass filaments."' Reply
2
Appeal2014-006178
Application 12/263,966
Br. 2-3 (citing Michael, col. 4, 11. 42--44). Moreover, the Appellants assert
that Michael's Figures 9 and 10 do not support the Examiner's finding that
sock 18 includes a multi-axial fabric/arrangement. Reply Br. 2-3. We
agree. Figures 9 and 10 are directed to different structures; Figure 9 is
directed to a glass reinforced rod and Figure 10 is directed to a coupling.
See Michael, col. 3, 11. 41--49. And, sock 18 is a component of glass
reinforced rod 26 not a component of coupling 46. See Michael, col. 4,
11. 42-55, col. 6, 11. 10-14, Figs. 3, 9, 10. Further, the Examiner does not
find that AP A discloses a sleeve comprising a plurality of fibres having a
multi-axial arrangement. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection fails to
adequately support the conclusion that the combination of teachings from
AP A and Michael result in the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 33--45 as
unpatentable over AP A and Michael is not sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14, 16,
and 33--45.
REVERSED
3