Ex Parte Loubinoux

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 22, 2010

10068857 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DOMINIQUE LOUBINOUX
____________

Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 22, 2010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 30-31, 44, 47, 52, and 54-59. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857

Appellant claims a method of manufacturing a composite sheet
comprising providing a first bundle of parallel threads, a lap of threads, and
a second bundle of parallel threads including filaments of thermoplastic
material, wherein the first bundle, the lap of threads, and the second bundle
respectively form first, second, and third layers whose threads are separate
and unconnected from threads in any other layer (claim 30).
Further details of Appellant’s claimed invention are set forth in
representative claim 30 which reads as follows:
30. A method of manufacturing a composite sheet comprising:

providing a first bundle of parallel threads moving unidirectionally in
a first direction;

placing a lap of thread(s) on a surface of the moving bundle of threads
with a weft insertion carriage, wherein the lap of thread(s) is a single layer of
continuous thread(s) oriented in a second direction that is transverse to the
first direction, to provide a first combination of threads having a first layer
comprising the moving bundle of threads and a second layer comprising the
lap of thread(s);

combining the first combination of threads with a second bundle of
parallel threads moving in the first direction to provide a second
combination of threads having, in the following order, a first layer
comprising the moving bundle of threads, a second layer comprising the lap
of thread(s) and a third layer comprising the second bundle of parallel
threads, wherein the threads of the first layer, second layer, and third layer
are separate and unconnected from threads in any other layer,

wherein the second combination of threads comprises at least 50% by
weight of co-blended threads consisting essentially of intimately mixed glass
filaments and filaments of at least one thermoplastic organic material; then

heating the second combination of threads, optionally applying
pressure to the second combination of threads, and cooling the second
combination of threads to provide a solid composite sheet; and
2
Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857

collecting the solid composite sheet,

wherein at least one of the first bundle of parallel threads, the second
bundle of parallel threads, or the lap of threads comprises the at least one
thermoplastic organic material, and at least one reinforcing material, and at
least one of the first bundle of parallel threads, the second bundle of parallel
threads, or the lap of threads comprises at least two materials having
different melting points,

wherein the combination of threads comprises at least 10 percent of
the thermoplastic organic material, and
wherein the composite sheet comprises solely the first bundle of
parallel threads, the lap of threads, and the second bundle of parallel threads.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Curzio 4,539,249 Sep. 03, 1985
O’Connor 4,800,113 Jan. 24, 1989
Middelman 5,269,863 Dec. 14, 1993
Vane 5,445,693 Aug. 29, 1995
Matsuo 5,989,710 Nov. 23, 1999
Senoir GB 2190041 A Nov. 11, 1987

Solventless Fabrication of Reinforced Composites, NASA Tech Briefs 98
(1982) (hereafter “NASA Tech Briefs”).

The Examiner rejects all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Middelman in view of any one of O’Connor, Nasa
Tech Briefs, GB ‘041, or Curzio and optionally further taken with either
Vane or Matsuo.
The Examiner acknowledges that in Middelman’s process the
composite sheet layers (i.e., which correspond to Appellant’s claimed first
bundle of parallel threads and a lap of threads) are impregnated and
3
Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857

reinforced with a matrix material such as a thermoplastic melt rather than a
second bundle of parallel threads which include thermoplastic filaments as
required by claim 30 (Ans. 5-10). According to the Examiner, each of
O’Connor, NASA Tech Briefs, GB ‘041, and Curzio teaches that it is
advantageous to replace a thermoplastic melt with thermoplastic fibers
which are ultimately heated and melted in order to reinforce composite
layers (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
replace the thermoplastic melt of Middelman’s process with thermoplastic
fibers as required by claim 30 so as to thereby obtain the advantages taught
by O’Connor, NASA Tech Briefs, GB ‘041, or Curzio (id.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Middelman “would change the principle of operation of the Middelman
process and render the Middelman process inoperable because omission of
the Middelman impregnation step would provide an assembly of threads
without any matrix structure” (App. Br. para. bridging 6-7).
This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons expressed in the
Answer (Ans. 10-13) and below.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s proposed
modification of the Middelman process would not result in “an assembly of
threads without any matrix structure” (App. Br. para. bridging 6-7). In the
conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner proposes replacing Middelman’s
step of thermoplastic melt impregnation with the step of providing
thermoplastic fibers which are ultimately heated and melted in order to
obtain the matrix structure which reinforces the layers of Middelman’s
composite. Therefore, the modification proposed by the Examiner results in
the omission of Middelman’s impregnation step but not the omission of a
4
Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857

matrix structure as Appellant believes. Rather, the modified Middelman
process achieves a matrix structure by using thermoplastic fibers instead of a
thermoplastic melt in order to obtain the advantages taught by O’Connor,
NASA Tech Briefs, GB ‘041, or Curzio.
As more fully explained by the Examiner (Ans. 10-13), Appellant also
is incorrect in believing that modifying Middelman’s process in the manner
proposed by the Examiner “would change the principle of operation of the
Middelman process” (App. Br. para. bridging 6-7). Since the modified
process of Middelman would still achieve a matrix structure for reinforcing
the composite layers, no fundamental change would occur in the principle of
operation of the Middelman process. In this regard, we emphasize that the
advantages of Middelman’s process result from the use of thread layers
which are not bonded in the form of a woven fabric as in the prior art
(compare col. 3, ll. 4-39 with col. 1, ll. 29-65). The impregnation step used
in Middelman’s process was also used in the prior art described by
Middelman (see id.) and is neither an advantage nor a principle of operation
of the Middelman process.
Finally, we observe that the Reply Brief contains arguments based on
specific teachings of the secondary references applied by the Examiner
(Reply Br. 3-7). These arguments were not, but could have been, made in
Appellant’s Principal Appeal Brief. Indeed, the Examiner expressly stated
that Appellant had failed to address in the Appeal Brief the teachings of the
secondary references (Ans. 12, 13). Moreover, Appellant has not explained
why these Reply Brief arguments were not presented in the Principal Appeal
Brief. Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, any argument not
timely presented in the Principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a
5
Appeal 2009-012428
Application 10/068857

Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Principal Brief. See Ex Parte George
R. Borden IV, 2010 WL 191083 *1-5 (BPAI 2010) and Ex Parte Atsuhisa
Nakashima, 2010 WL 191183 *3-5 (BPAI 2010). Accordingly, we decline
to consider these Reply Brief arguments in our disposition of this appeal.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Middelman in view of any one of O’Connor, NASA Tech Briefs, GB ‘041,
or Curzio and optionally further taken with either Vane or Matsuo.
The decision of the Examiner 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) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
6