Ex Parte Knepper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

12910270 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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.
12/910,270 10/22/2010 Peter Knepper 1406/526 PCT/US 7696
25297 7590 03/23/2017
Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A.
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard
Suite 550
Morrisville, NC 27560
EXAMINER
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
u sptomail @ j wth. com
mmcjunkin@jwth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER KNEPPER and KLAUS J. EISENMENGER1
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Airbus Operations GmbH.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our Decision below we refer to the Specification filed October 22, 2010,
as amended July 29, 2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed November
25, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed April 27, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 29, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed
September 29, 2015 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to a method for coating a fiber composite
component for an aircraft or spacecraft. Spec 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for coating a fibre composite component for an
aircraft or spacecraft, comprising:
(i) providing the fibre composite component having fibres
being embedded in a matrix, wherein the matrix at the same time
forms a surface layer of the fibre composite component, which
surface layer has spacing from the fibres of the composite
component for protection thereof;
(ii) pretreating, at least in portions, the surface layer of the
fibre composite component to form a primer coat with a given
penetration depth, wherein to form the primer coat individual
particles being applied into the surface layer to form a particle
coat; and
(iii) applying at least one functional coat to the formed
primer coat, wherein the at least one functional coat is applied by
a thermal spraying process as a metal coat formed of metal
particles for lightning protection.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1—3 and 5—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanders3, Isley4,
3 Laurence R. Sanders, US 4,349,859, issued September 14, 1982
(“Sanders”).
4 Isley, Jr. et al., US 5,391,425, issued February 21, 1995 (“Isley”).
2
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
Passman,5 and Halliwell,6 alone or optionally in view of
Smith.7 Final Act. 4 and 22; Ans. 3.
B. Claims 1—3 and 5—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanders, Passman,
Halliwell, alone or optionally in view of Smith. Final Act.
13; Ans. 9.
C. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sanders, Isley, Passman and Halliwell,
alone or optionally in view of Smith and Riccio.8 Final
Act. 11; Ans. 14.
D. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sanders, Passman, Halliwell, alone or
optionally in view of Smith and Riccio. Final Act. 20;
Ans. 14.
Appellants seek our review of Rejections A through D. See generally
Appeal Br. Because we reverse based on error as to independent claim 1,
the sole independent claim, we need only address claim 1 below.
5 Passman et al., US 2007/0042126 Al, published February 22, 2007
(“Passman”).
6 Michael J. Halliwell, US 6,342,272 Bl, issued January 29, 2002
(“Halliwell”).
7 Smith et al., Thermal Spray Coatings for Protection of Polymeric
Composite Aircraft Components, Proceedings of the 7th National Thermal
Spray Conference, June 20—24, 1994 (“Smith”).
8 Riccio et al., US 4,521,475, issued June 4, 1985 (“Riccio”).
3
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
OPINION
Rejection A — Obviousness (claims 1—3 and 5—8)
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious in view of Sanders, Isley,
Passman and Halliwell. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Sanders
teaches coating an embedded fiber composite for use in aircraft components
as claimed. Id. The Examiner also finds that “[a] functional coating is
applied to the component by means of a thermal spraying process ... to
form a metal coating for lightning protection.” Id. The Examiner
acknowledges that Sanders does not teach
(1) the matrix of the fiber composite component forms a surface
layer with spacing from the fibers of the composite component,
or (2) pretreating this surface layer with a primer coat with
individual particles of the primer coat applied into the surface
layer to form a particle coating, with the primer coat having a
given penetration depth, and then applying the thermal spray
metal coat as individual particles.
Id. A—5. But, the Examiner finds that Isley discloses a fiber reinforced
composite material where “sufficient resin is used in forming the composite
material so that the fibers are totally immersed in the resin matrix” and, "in
many instances the underlying fiber or core pattern is located close to the
resin matrix surface.” Id. The Examiner explains that the fibers are “located
close to (not at) the resin matrix surface, indicating that there will be at least
some distance between the fibers and resin matrix surface. Id. at 5—6.
Therefore, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious for the
skilled artisan to
modify Sanders to provide that the fiber composite component
has fibers embedded in a matrix, where the matrix at the same
time forms a surface layer of the fiber composite component,
4
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
which surface layer has spacing from the fibers of the composite
component as suggested by Isley.
Id. at 5. The Examiner additionally finds that Passman recognizes problems
with thermal spraying a coating directly onto fiber reinforced composites
and that pretreatment through cleaning and roughening the surface of the
composite prior to thermal spraying is advantageous. Id. at 6. The
Examiner finds that Halliwell describes
applying a first polymer coating to this pretreated surface
(column 3, lines 40—50), and then roughening the first polymer
layer by spraying and partially embedding hard particles into a
surface of the first layer, including embedding various filler
material particles by spraying (column 4, lines 1—20), and then
applying the second layer of polymer to the first layer with
embedded particles (column 4, lines 20-30, figure 1).
Id. at 7. The Examiner determines that the modification of Sanders and Isley
to pretreat the surface of the matrix as taught by Passman and Halliwell
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art “since Sanders desires to
apply a metal coating by thermal spraying” and Passman and Halliwell teach
it is desirable to clean and roughen the fiber composite surface by
embedding particles “to provide desirable adhesion of further coatings as
part of the primer coating to resultingly bond the functional coat of
thermally sprayed metal.” Id. at 7—8.
Appellants present several arguments in opposition to the
Examiner’s rejections. See e.g., Appeal Br. 3—9. Appellants’primary
argument is that neither Sanders (as the Examiner finds, Final Act. 4) nor
Isley teaches
5
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
providing the fibre composite component having fibres being
embedded in a matrix, wherein the matrix at the same time forms
a surface layer of the fibre composite component, which surface
layer has spacing from the fibres of the composite component for
protection thereof.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellants distinguish the instant invention from Isley
because, they contend, the instant invention requires that the fibers and
primer coat be spaced apart so that “there is to be no contact between the
fibers and the primer coat” while Isley describes the fibers as “close to the
resin matrix surface” such that “the pattern is clearly visible on the surface.
Id. at 8—9. Therefore, contend Appellants, Isley does not teach system
where the “surface layer has spacing from the fibers of the composite
component for the protection thereof.” Id. at 9.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive of reversible error. We
begin, as we must, by considering the proper interpretation of the claim term
“surface layer has spacing from the fibers of the composite component for
the protection thereof.” See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly
understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates
and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). During prosecution, the
PTO gives the language of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or
other enlightenment provided by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054—55 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
6
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
While we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Isley teaches use of
sufficient resin to ensure that the fibers are “totally immersed in the resin
matrix” and that close to the surface is not at the surface, “but rather a
distance away,” (Ans. 5) these findings alone are not sufficient to satisfy the
entirety of claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the “surface layer has spacing
from the fibres of the composite component for the protection thereof”
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Thus, the language of
the claim makes clear that the surface layer must have a spacing or thickness
sufficient to protect the fibers. The Specification supports this
understanding and explains that the spacing or thickness protects the fibers
from later process steps, including application of the primer coat:
An idea forming the basis for the invention is that a surface layer
of the fibre composite component, which surface layer has
spacing from the fibres introduced in the fibre composite
component for the protection thereof, is pretreated, at least in
portions, to form a primer coat for the application of at least one
functional coat. There is to be no contact between the fibres and
the primer coat which is applied or formed. [Spec, at 4
(emphasis added).]
In the example the top coat of the upper face 2 comprises a
surface layer 8 with a surface 7 and a surface layer thickness 9.
In this case, the surface layer thickness 9 is understood to mean
the measurement from the surface 7 to a fibre surface 6 which
has the smallest spacing from the surface 7. [Id. at 8 (emphasis
added).]
[I]t is important that the primer coat 13 is formed in the surface
layer 8 within a given penetration depth 16. The penetration
depth 16 is a measurement from the surface 7 up to a given
spacing 20 from the fibre surface 6 which has the smallest
distance from the surface 7. In this way it is ensured that no
7
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
fibres 5 are damaged by the pretreatment process. [Id.
(emphasis added).]
No finding has been made by the Examiner that the spacing of Isley is
sufficient to protect the embedded fibers from later processing steps.
Therefore, on this record, we are constrained and cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Rejection B — Obviousness (claims 1—3 and 5—8)
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Sanders, Passman and
Halliwell, alone or optionally in further view of Smith. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner reiterates his findings discussed above for Rejection A. Final
Act. 13—18. But, for Rejection B, the Examiner additionally finds that
Passman—as opposed to the combination of Sanders and Isley—teaches
[t]he provision of the first layer of polymeric material provides a
surface layer of the fiber composite component (that is the fiber
composite component made up of the base component and first
polymer layer) that has spacing from the fibers, at least because
of the thickness of the first polymer layer.
Id. at 14. The Examiner also reasons that “at the same time” does not
require a single step formation but rather can include multiple steps. Id. at
2—3 and 24—25. The Examiner further explains that the limitation requires
only that “the component has, at the point of pretreating, both (a) fibers
embedded in a matrix material and (b) a surface layer at a distance from the
fibers.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants urge that Passman fails to teach providing the fiber
composite component with a surface layer that is formed integrally and at
8
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
the same time with the matrix material of the fiber composite component as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants reason that because
Passman deposits a first layer (a fiber free layer) after the fiber composite
component is formed, it is not formed “at the same time.” Id.
Again, we find Appellants’ argument persuasive of reversible error.
The relevant claim limitation requires “providing the fibre composite
component having fibres being embedded in a matrix, wherein the matrix at
the same time forms a surface layer of the fibre composite component.”
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 14. The claim therefore requires when the
fiber composite component is provided or formed, it must also at the same
time, form the surface layer. This requirement is in contrast to the teachings
of Passman which instead require: (1) providing a fiber composite
component; (2) cleaning the surface of the fiber composite component; (3)
applying a first polymeric (fiber free) layer; (4) applying a second polymeric
layer comprising a mixture of particulate materials; and then (5) applying
one or more thermal spray layers. Passman, || 19-25. As a result,
preponderance of the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s
finding that Passman provides a fiber composite material comprising a
matrix where the matrix forms, at the same time, a surface layer. Thus, we
cannot sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1—8 as obvious in
view of the recited prior art.
9
Appeal 2016-000193
Application 12/910,270
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8 is
reversed.
REVERSED
10