Ex Parte Jacob et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

12227679 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
12/227,679 03/06/2009 Torben Jacob 1406/374 PCT/US 9864
25297 7590 03/01/2018
Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A.
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard
Suite 550
Morrisville, NC 27560
EXAMINER
LE, NINH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
u sptomail @ j wth. com
wehmig@jwth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TORBEN JACOB and JOACHIM PIEPENBROCK
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12—21, and 24—26, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In explaining our decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 24,
2008 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action entered Mar. 24, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 20, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer entered Dec. 15, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Feb. 15,
2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to “a method for producing a
fiber composite component, in particular for aerospace.” Spec. 1:5—6. The
Specification further describes “a molding core for producing such a fiber
composite component” and “a fiber composite component with at least one
stringer which is produced by means of such a molding core and/or such a
method.” Id. at 1:6—9. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is
representative and reproduced below from page 18 (Claims Appendix) of the
Appeal Brief (disputed limitations italicized):
1. A method for producing a fiber composite component,
comprising:
providing a molding tool;
introducing a core sleeve into the molding tool for
establishing an outer geometry of a molding core to be formed;
providing reinforcing comer profiles in opposing comers
of the molding tool, wherein the comer profiles include an outer
geometry that conforms to an inner geometry of the molding
tool;
filling the core sleeve with a vacuum-fixable filling
material;
applying a vacuum to the core sleeve to vacuum-fix the
vacuum-fixable filling material, thereby forming a rigid
molding core that is compressed within the core sleeve between
portions of the comer profiles, wherein the molding core is
elongated and comprises a length along a first axis and a width
along a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis, wherein
the length is greater than the width;
opening the molding tool and removing the molding core,
the core sleeve, and the comer profiles therefrom;
applying a release layer to the core sleeve, thereby
reducing adhesive attachment of a semifinished fiber composite
product to the core sleeve;
2
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
arranging the molding core, the core sleeve, and the
corner profiles on a surface of a base part comprising
semifinished fiber composite products, wherein the molding
core is arranged so that the first axis is substantially parallel to
the surface of the base part; and
laying at least one semifinished fiber product over the
molding core, the core sleeve, the corner profiles, and the
surface of the base part for shaping the fiber composite
component to be produced.
Claims 8 and 15 each depend from claim 1 and further recite,
respectively, “wherein providing reinforcing comer profiles comprises
providing a braided carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CRP) gusset or an
extmded plastic gusset” and “wherein the core sleeve is formed from an
elastic or a flexible material.” App. Br. 19, 20.
3
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
1. Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15—18, 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Teufel3 in view of
Lunde,4 Grose,5 and Forster.6
2. Claims 14 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Teufel in view of Lunde, Grose, Forster, and Gardner.7
3. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Teufel in view of Lunde, Grose, Forster, and Goodno.8
ANALYSIS
Appellants9 present arguments concerning only claims 1, 8, and 15.
Their arguments are directed principally towards the Examiner’s reliance on
Teufel, and Appellants do not distinguish among the different grounds of
rejection. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and based upon
the lack of arguments directed to the subsidiary rejections, claims 2, 3, 5, 6,
9, 12—14, 16—21, and 24—26 will stand or fall together with independent
claim 1 from which they depend.
2 The Examiner additionally rejected claims 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, and claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Final Act. 3—5. Appellants do not argue these rejections on
appeal, therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
24 and 26.
3 US 2004/0216805 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2004.
4 US 6,692,681 Bl, iss. Feb. 17, 2004.
5 US 2006/0188696 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006.
6 US 5,897,739, iss. Apr. 27, 1999.
7 US 5,260,121, iss. Nov. 9, 1993.
8 US 5,262,121, iss. Nov. 16, 1993.
9 The real party in interest is identified in the Appeal Brief as Airbus
Deutschland GmbH. App. Br. 1.
4
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of Appellants and the Examiner, we determine that
Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action, and in the Examiner’s Answer. See generally Final Act. 5—23;
Ans. 5^44.
Claim 1
Concerning claim 1, the Examiner finds that the claimed method
would have been obvious to a person having skill in the art at the time of the
invention in view of the teachings of Teufel, Lunde, Grose, and Forster for
the reasons stated on pages 5 through 15 of the Final Office Action.
Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1
because Teufel (1) is silent regarding providing media volumes in opposing
comers of a molding tool, (2) is silent regarding a planar surface of a base
part comprising semifinished fiber composite products, (3) fails to disclose a
fuselage that is arranged over a planar surface longitudinally as claimed, and
(4) fails to disclose providing reinforcing comer profiles in opposing comers
of the molding tool. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend that even if
Teufel is combined with Lunde to split the form tool in order to facilitate
removal of the mandrel and molding core, the combination would not have
resulted in the claimed method because Teufel wraps a filament with resin
around the bladder so that the fuselage is formed around the mandrel, which
would result in gaps between the tail section and the planar surface. Id. at
11-12.
Appellants also argue that Grose’s disclosure of two laminate sheets
and a core arranged between does not disclose a comer profile as claimed in
5
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
claim 1 because Grose’s composite structure is already a final product and
not suitable to form a molding core wherein at least one semi-finished fiber
product is laid over the molding core. Id. at 13. Similarly, Appellants assert
that Forster fails to compensate for the deficiencies of Teufel, Lunde, and/or
Grose because it does not disclose a molding tool, introducing a core sleeve,
providing reinforcing comer profiles in opposing comers of the molding tool
wherein the comer profiles include an outer geometry that conforms to an
inner geometry of the molding tool as required by the claim or arranging the
molding core, core sleeve, and comer profiles on a planar surface of a base
part comprising semifinished fiber composite products. Id. at 14. In
addition, Appellants argue that because Teufel provides no guidance for
making the modifications proposed by the Examiner, a skilled artisan would
not have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 15.
The Examiner responds that Teufel teaches the bladder can be an
elastomeric material comprising silicone or latex and that elastomer by
definition is any various elastic substance resembling mbber and elastic by
definition is capable of being easily stretched or expanded and resuming
former shape. Ans. 25 (citing Teufel 33, 38, 49). The Examiner also
finds that Teufel’s disclosure of the void pocket collapsing inward evidences
that the bladder is flexible and/or elastic in order for this to occur. Id. at 26
(citing Teufel 1 57). Regarding geometry, the Examiner further finds that
Teufel discloses comer profiles 930 inside bladder 610 such that an outer
geometry conforms to an inner geometry of molding tool 710 and has a
length along a first access and a width along a second access. Id. at 31
(citing Teufel Figs. 7—10). The Examiner finds that form tool 710 is
separated from mandrel 600 in Figure 10 of Teufel, therefore, form tool 710
6
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
must separate at the split lines to facilitate removal. Id. at 32. The Examiner
further finds that since the inner surface of the mold and the mandrel have
the same shape, it would have been obvious that the molding core would be
substantially parallel to the inner surface of the external mold in order to
form a fuselage having the desired exterior shape. Id. at 34—35.
Regarding Appellants’ distinctions over the secondary references, the
Examiner responds that Appellants’ arguments are over the references
individually rather than the combination (id. at 29—30, 41—42) and that
Appellants’ assertion that the combination has no reasonable expectation of
success is not supported by evidence as each of Teufel, Lunde, Grose, and
Forster are all in the same field of endeavor of making fiber composites for
aircraft (id. at 40). The Examiner points out that (1) Lunde was cited for
disclosing removal of a molding core from a form tool along split lines, (2)
Grose was cited to evidence that it was known to make fiber reinforced
composite for aircraft and to provide reinforcing comer profiles in opposing
comers of a molding core for the benefit of maximizing the stmctural
integrity and rigidity of the bladder and to form a desired fuselage shape,
and (3) Forster was cited to show that it was well-known in the art of making
fiber composite for aircraft to place a release film between a molding device
and a composite material. Id. at 37—39, 41 42. The Examiner further
responds that claim 1 neither recites nor requires a “planar surface” as
Appellants contend. Id. at 43.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants maintain that Teufel discloses a “stiff
pre-molded silicon bag” rather than an elastic and/or flexible core sleeve.
Reply Br. 3—7. According to Appellants, none of the cited references
discloses a release layer to a core sleeve to reduce adhesive attachment of a
7
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
semifinished fiber composite product because Forster’s release film is
positioned between a breather ply and an uncured composite skin. Id. at 8.
Appellants contend that Forster’s configuration differs from that shown in
Figure 5 of Appellants’ Specification. Id. at 9-10.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. In this proceeding, we interpret the claims according to
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See, e.g., In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do
not persuasively explain why the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 requires that the “base part” in the claimed method is planar.
Appellants appear to ask us, effectively, to read the word “planar” into
claim 1. We decline to do so. Cf. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow .... [Sjcope and breadth of
language [should be] explored, and clarification imposed.”). Appellants
point to nothing persuasive in the Specification that would counsel in favor
of the construction that they propose. In the context of the broadest
reasonable interpretation applicable to this proceeding, Appellants’
arguments do not persuade us that the scope of the claim should be so
limited. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument fails to persuade us of
reversible error in the rejection.
Appellants’ argument distinguishing Forster based on an embodiment
disclosed in Figure 5 of Appellants’ Specification is also not persuasive of
error because the Examiner cites Teufel for teaching the molding tool and
core sleeve steps (see, e.g., Ans. 30) and relies on Forster for the general
teaching of the use of release films in making a fiber composite for aircraft
8
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
and the placement between a molding device and a composite material (see,
e.g., Ans. 38—39).
Even if we were to consider Appellants’ new argument raised for the
first time in the Reply Brief that Forster requires a breather ply between the
release film and a vacuum bag (Reply Br. 8), Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because it seeks to bodily incorporate an embodiment of Forster
into the teachings of Teufel. “The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”). Rather, “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Similarly, Appellants’ argument distinguishing Grose is unpersuasive
because it distinguishes the secondary reference based on a bodily
incorporation of Grose’s support 20 and core 16 in Teufel’s method for
producing a fiber composite component. Appellants assert that Grose’s
support members 20 are bonded at each end of Grose’s core 16, not suitable
to be removed, and are stiffer than the core, thus, Grose’s core 16 does not
9
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
form a comer profile as required by claim 1. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 37) that Grose teaches support
members 20 located in opposing comers of a molding core. Nor do
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s determination (id. at 38) that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan in view of the combination of cited
references to incorporate Teufel’s teaching of a plurality of pre-filled
contained media volumes at the plurality of regions of transition along the
longitudinal axis of the mandrel, including at opposing comers, to maximize
the stmctural integrity and rigidity of the bladder taught by Teufel.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in
combining the teachings of Grose with Teufel and the other cited references.
Finally, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 25) that
Teufel teaches the bladder can be an elastomeric material comprising
silicone or latex and that such material by definition is elastic and/or
flexible. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the record. See, e.g.,
Teufel H33, 38, 49. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive of error by the Examiner.
For the above reasons, and in view of the positions presented by the
Examiner and Appellants, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over
the cited prior art. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Concerning claim 8, the Examiner finds that the claimed method
would have been obvious to a person having skill in the art at the time of the
invention in view of the teachings of Teufel, Lunde, Grose, and Forster as
evidenced by Tikuisis (US 2005/0070644 Al, pub. Mar. 31, 2005) and
10
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
Yadav (US 2005/0126338 Al, pub. June 16, 2005) for the reasons stated on
page 16 of the Final Office Action.
Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8
because Teufel is silent regarding providing media volumes 930 in opposing
comers of a molding tool let alone reinforcing comer profiles comprising a
braided carbon fiber reinforced plastic gusset or an extmded plastic gusset.
App. Br. 15—16.
The Examiner responds that Teufel explicitly discloses that its
contained media volume 930 can be made of plastic films, which the
Examiner identifies as a plastic gusset, and is further evidenced by Tikuisis
and Yadav. Ans. 43 (citing Teufel 1 59).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding
that Teufel teaches its contained media volume can be made of plastic films,
i.e., aplastic gusset.
We are not persuaded of reversible error by the Examiner based on the
cited record in this Appeal. Appellants’ argument that Teufel does not
disclose providing media volumes in opposing comers does not address the
rejection made by the Examiner, which is over the combination of Teufel
with the teachings of Lunde, Grose, and Forster. Moreover, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Teufel to provide
reinforcing comer profiles in opposing comers of a molding core as recited
in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, in view of Grose’s disclosure of
support members 20 in opposing comers of molding core 16. Ans. 37—38
(citing Grose 24—25). The Examiner reasonably determines that it would
have been obvious to do so for the benefit of maximizing the stmctural
integrity and rigidity of Teufel’s bladder 610 and would allow Teufel’s
11
Appeal 2017-005589
Application 12/227,679
bladder 610 to form the desired shape of the fuselage. Id. at 38. In addition,
the Examiner’s finding that Teufel discloses its contained media volume can
be made of plastic films is supported by the record and not disputed by
Appellants. Teufel 1 59; see generally Reply Br.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the
reasons discussed above in addition to those provided in the Final Office
Action and the Examiner’s Answer.
Claim 15
Concerning claim 15, the Examiner finds that the claimed method
would have been obvious to a person having skill in the art at the time of the
invention in view of the teachings of Teufel, Lunde, Grose, and Forster for
the reasons stated on page 17 of the Final Office Action.
Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim
15 because Teufel’s bladder 610 is a stiff pre-molded silicon bag and,
therefore, is not an elastic or flexible material. App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12—
21, and 2A-26.
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).
AFFIRMED
12