Ex Parte Preisler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

13762956 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
13/762,956 02/08/2013 Darius J. Preisler GIPH0159PUS 8213
22045 7590 04/24/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARIUS J. PREISLER and
CHRISTOPHER A. HEIKKILA
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,9561
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Global IP Holdings, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed February 8, 2013
(“Spec.”); the Final Action electronically delivered on September 8, 2015
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer electronically delivered on February 24, 2015
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 21, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,956
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to method of making a sandwich-type,
compression-molded, composite component having improved surface
appearance. Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitation at issue
highlighted, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of making a sandwich-type, compression-
molded, composite component having improved surface
appearance, the method comprising:
heating a blank or stack of sandwich material including
first and second resin skins and a core positioned between the
skins and having a large number of cavities, the skins and the
core being heated to a softening temperature of the resin;
providing a compression mold including component­
forming, upper and lower dies with opposing molding surfaces
cooperating to define a mold cavity having a shape substantially
corresponding to a desired shape of the component;
placing the blank or stack on the lower die in an open
position of the mold;
moving the dies toward each other until the mold is in a
closed position;
allowing the heated blank or stack to cool in the mold
cavity in the closed position until inner surfaces of the skins are
bonded to top and bottom surfaces of the core to seal the core
cavities, air in the sealed cavities urging softened portions of
the skins inwardly towards the cavities of the core as the air in
the cavities cools; and
applying a vacuum at a first outer surface of the blank
or stack in the mold cavity sufficient to prevent debossing and
improve appearance of the first outer surface during the step
of allowing.
Appeal Br. Claims App’x 1.
2
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,956
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Hewitt US 4,204,822 May 27, 1980
Shuert US 5,143,778 Sept. 1, 1992
Preisler et al. US 2003/0197400 A1 Oct. 23, 2003
(“Preisler”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 4—14, 16—18, and 20 over Preisler in view of
Shuert; and (2) claims 3, 15, and 19 over Preisler in view of Shuert and
further in view of Hewitt. Final Act. 2, 4.
OPINION
Rejection over Preisler in view of Shuert
Because we consider the evidence insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to recitations found in each of
independent claims 1, 13, and 17, we need only address claim l.The
Examiner finds that Preisler teaches all elements of claim 1 except “(a)
placing a blank ‘on the lower die’ (lower die with respect to gravity) and
‘moving the dies toward teach other’ (both dies move), or (b) the application
of a vacuum at a first outer surface of the stack sufficient to prevent
debossing and improve appearance.” Final Act. 3. As to (b), the Examiner
finds that Shuert teaches that a stack including a core and two skins can be
provided to a mold cavity having a shape corresponding to the desired shape
of the component, with at least one blank or portion of the stack being
placed on the lower die, and that vacuum is applied to both skins at both
3
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,956
mold surfaces. Id. According to the Examiner, this vacuum would improve
the appearance of the article by pulling the skins into conformity with the
surface contours of both molds. Id.
Appellants point out that the mold in Shuert does not join or bond the
layers of the laminate structural article; it only shapes. Appeal Br. 9. As
explained by Appellants, in Shuert, the oven applies heat to the laminate
structural article after its constituent layers are joined. Id. Shuert teaches
that, following position of a laminated sheet on each of the upper and lower
molds, vacuum is applied to the molds to pull the laminated sheets into
conformity with the surface contours of the upper and lower molds,
respectively. Shuert col. 4,11. 37-42.
Appellants correctly point out that “Shuert does not deal with the
problem of surface defects caused by air in cavities in a center core because
there is no center core in Shuert.” Appeal Br. 9. The strips in Shuert’s
lamination process are joined or bonded together in air-tight relation by
rollers, not a mold. Id.
In contrast to Shuert, in Preisler two skins and a cellular core are
preassembled in a mold and heated to a temperature enabling the skins to be
bonded to the cellular core. Preisler || 31—36. Preisler does not employ
vacuum to form the shape of the resulting composite.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not
be motivated to combine the teachings of Preisler and Shuert, as the
processes disclosed by the two references are not compatible; Preisler
compresses layers to create a composite, while Shuert uses vacuum to shape
a composite already created. The “articulated reasoning with some rational
4
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,956
underpinning” required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness is
lacking here. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Shuert’s process also contrasts with the claimed method, which
applies vacuum to the outer surfaces of the stack in the mold cavity at the
same time that air in the sealed core cavities is cooling. See Claims App’x 1,
Spec. 147 48. Since Shuert has no cellular core containing air cavities,
application of vacuum to an outer surface of the composite, without being
countered by the negative force of cooling air in air cavities, would be more
likely to cause surface imperfections that to prevent them.
We are persuaded that Preisler, in combination with Shuert, fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. We do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of obviousness of claims 2, 4—14, 16—18, and 20.
Rejection over Preisler in view of Shuert, further in view of Hewitt
Claims 3,15, and 19 contain the additional claim limitation “further
comprising sealing the mold cavity from the surrounding atmosphere during
the step of applying.” Claims App’x 1, 3, and 4.
Because claims 1,15, and 19 each depend from a claim that we find
non-obvious over the combination of Preisler and Shuert, no prima facie
case of obvious has been established for any of these claims. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the obviousness rejections
of claims 1—20.
5
Appeal 2016-004376
Application 13/762,956
REVERSED
6