Ex Parte Ruckey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

12558235 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/558,235 09/11/2009
12208 7590
Kinney&Lange,P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
10/20/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Curtis J. Ruckey
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.
PA0007234A-U73.12-421KL 6026
EXAMINER
WILEY, DANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2016 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):
amkoenck@kinney.com
USPatDocket@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CURTIS J. RUCKEY and FRANCIS R. MOON
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
Technology Center 3600
Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Curtis J. Ruckey and Francis R. Moon ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-22. Claim 9 is
cancelled, and claims 10-15 are withdrawn. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an anchor and splice plate assembly for an
axially split composite duct or pressure vessel. Spec. 1 (Title). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An assembly comprising:
a first shell member;
a second shell member positioned adjacent to the first shell
member;
a splice plate extending across portions of both the first shell
member and the second shell member;
an anchor plate located opposite the splice plate and extending
across portions of both the first shell member and the
second shell member, the anchor plate comprising:
a body portion;
a first array of fastener openings defined through the body
portion;
a second array of fastener openings defined through the
body portion; and
a plurality of anchor plate attachment features extending
from a first side of the body portion and each having
a fastener opening;
an insert positioned within each fastener opening of the first array
and the second array, wherein each insert is rotationally
locked relative to the anchor plate;
a first set of fasteners secured through the first array of fastener
openings in the anchor plate, the first shell member and
the splice plate and each engaged with a corresponding
one of the inserts;
a second set of fasteners secured through the second array of
fastener openings in the anchor plate, the second shell
member and the splice plate and each engaged with a
corresponding one of the inserts, wherein at least the
second set of fasteners and the corresponding inserts are
configured for blind engagement and disengagement from
a location proximate the splice plate; and
2
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
a third set of fasteners secured through the fastener openings of
the anchor plate attachment features and the first shell
member.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Andren
Steward
Baehre
Hart-Smith
Jakob
Sill
us 1,872,616
us 3,909,927
us 5,232,323
us 5,297,760
US 6,601,698 B2
US 6,578,902 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug. 16, 1932
Oct. 7, 1975
Aug. 3, 1993
Mar. 29, 1994
Aug. 5, 2003
June 1 7, 2003
(I) Claims 1--4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith, and Andren.
(II) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sill, Hart- Smith, Andren, and Steward.
(III) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sill, Hart-Smith, Andren, and Baehre. 1
(IV) Claims 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sill, McDonald, Andren, and Bergholz.
(V) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sill, McDonald, Andren, Bergholz, and Jakob.
1 Although the heading of the Examiner's rejection identifies claim 9, it
appears this was an inadvertent error, as claim 9 has been cancelled and the
body of the Examiner's rejection discusses claim 8. Non-Final Act. 8-9, Br.
3, 10 n.1.
3
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
(VI) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sill, McDonald, Andren, Bergholz, and Steward.
OPINION
Re} ection (I)
The Examiner finds that Sill discloses most of the features recited in
claim 1, but relies on Hart-Smith to teach a plurality of anchor plate
attachment features as required. Non-Final Act. 3---6. The Examiner relies
on Andren to teach "an insert 7 positioned within a fastener opening 3
wherein each insert is rotationally locked relative to an anchor plate 1;
wherein the fastener and the corresponding insert are configured for blind
engagement and disengagement from a location proximate a splice plate 2."
Non-Final Act. 6 (underlining added). The Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious "to modify the device in Sill by adding inserts engaging
with threaded fasteners as taught by Andren in order to facilitate blind
fastening, thereby easing assembly." Non-Final Act. 7.
Appellants' first argument for the patentability of claim 1 is that
"none of the references discloses fasteners and corresponding inserts
configured for blind engagement and disengagement from a location
proximate a splice plate as claimed." Br. 16. In this regard, Appellants
contend that Andren does not teach "blind engagement" because nut 7 can
be pushed out of perforation 3 when a user attempts to thread bolt 11 into
nut 7. Br. 16. Appellants' second argument is that Sill and Hart-Smith teach
away from the Examiner's proposed combination. Br. 16-18.
4
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that, to the extent the term
"configured for blind engagement" in claim 1 requires rotational locking and
axial locking, Andren teaches both types of locking. Ans. 3 (citing Andren,
1, 11. 48---61). 2
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Andren discloses axial
locking of nut 7. In this regard, Andren states:
The nut is then applied to plate 1 with the shank 8
extending through the perforation 3 and the metal at the end of
the shank is deformed to rivet or otherwise secure the nut to the
plate 1.
The plates 1 and 2 are then assembled with the threaded
opening 10 in the nut aligned with the opening 4 in plate 2 and a
bolt 11 is passed through the parts with its head 12 in engagement
with the embossment 5 in plate 2 and with its threaded portion in
engagement with the nut 7.
Andren, 1, 11. 48-59 (emphasis added). Thus, Andren rivets nut 7 to plate 1
before assembling plates 1 and 2, contrary to Appellants' assertion that
"deformation of the nut 3 to hold it in place is possible only after a threaded
engagement is made to produce that deformation" (Br. 17). Accordingly,
2 The Examiner also interprets claim 1, stating, "[Applicants'] own
explanation of what a 'blind engagement configuration' entails does not
appear to require axial locking." Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). In this regard,
the Examiner quotes paragraph 18 of Appellants' Specification as well as In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Ans. 4. Further, the
Examiner finds that it is unclear what structure in Appellants' original
disclosure provides axial locking, and "[ n Jot only does the specification fail
to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what structure would prevent the
insert from being 'pushed out' by the bolt, the drawings do not appear to
show any structure for axial locking that is absent from Andren." Ans. 4.
5
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
Appellants' arguments regarding the deficiency in Andren are not
persuasive. 3
Regarding Appellants' second argument, that Sill and Hart-Smith
teach away from the Examiner's proposed combination, Appellants contend
that "the use of a protruding fastener would encroach on interior space in a
way Sill explicitly seeks to avoid, and would introduce aerodynamic drag
that Hart-Smith explicitly seeks to avoid." Br. 17. Appellants further
contend that Andren requires the protrusion of a nut in order to allow for
deforming or riveting its shank 8, and a combination of Sill, Hart-Smith, and
Andren must also retain a protruding nut. See Br. 18.
The Examiner finds that the proposed combination of Sill, Hart-
Smith, and Andren would not require the introduction of an undesirable
protrusion into the interior space created by Sill. Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds that Sill already includes rivet heads that protrude at least partially into
the interior of the trailer taught by Sill and, therefore, Sill does not require a
complete absence of such protrusions. Ans. 6. Rather, according to the
Examiner, Sill provides structure to minimize the effect of such protrusions.
Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner on these points. Sill states, "[a]s shown
in FIG. 3, rivet heads 42 are preferably also partially or completely couched
in recessed region 35 along with interior splicer plate 23 and interior
adhesive sheet 25. Again, recessing rivet heads 42 serves to lessen or
3 As we agree with the Examiner's finding that Andren teaches axial locking
of a nut, we need not reach the Examiner's second point (that claim 1 does
not require axial locking) and third point (that claim 1 does not clearly
define the structure associated with axial locking). See Ans. 4.
6
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
eliminate protrusions beyond interior trailer surface 38." Sill, col. 6, 11. 26-
30 (boldface omitted); see id. at Figs. 3 and 5 (depicting the rivet heads
couched within a recessed region). Thus, Sill addresses the problem of
protrusions by providing a recess for them, not by eliminating fasteners that
might protrude. 4
Appellants also argue that Hart-Smith teaches away from introducing
protrusions because these "would tend to create the sort of [aerodynamic]
drag inefficiencies Hart-Smith explicitly seeks to avoid." Br. 18.
Appellants further contend that Hart-Smith teaches away from countersunk
fasteners because these weakenjoints. Br. 18, n. 2.
We are not persuaded on these points. First, Appellants do not
explain persuasively why aerodynamic drag would be of any concern in the
Examiner's proposed combination, which is based on the interior structure
of a tractor trailer. See Sill, Abstract (stating "[t ]he wall joint of the present
invention is configured to reduce or eliminate protrusions into the interior of
the trailer or container, but does not require coining or stamping of the edges
of consecutive sidewall panels"). Second, as discussed above, Sill provides
a recessed region to reduce or eliminate the effect of protrusions, and
Appellants provide no persuasive explanation as to why this recessed region
would not function equally as well in the combination of features proposed
by the Examiner.
As for the alleged weakening effect of countersunk fasteners, we note
that the Examiner reproduces both Figure 2 and Figure 3 of Andren in the
4 Sill also teaches the use of bolts used in alternative embodiments. Sill, col.
8, 11. 13-3 6.
7
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
rejection of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 7. Although the embodiment depicted
in Figure 3 includes a countersink, the embodiment in Figure 2 does not
include a countersink. Andren 1, 11. 31-34, 71-82. Rather, plate 2 in Figure
2 of Andren is embossed to provide recess 6. Id. Thus, the Examiner's use
of the teachings of Andren does not necessitate the use of a countersunk
opening. In any event, we are not persuaded that the alleged detrimental
effect of providing a countersunk hole would dissuade a person of skill in
the art from doing so. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157,
1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A] given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine."). In this regard, we note that Andren teaches that
an opening with a countersunk structure provides a benefit. See id. at 1, 11.
77-81 (stating "[t]he thinning of the plate at the perforation in the plate 2
provides a resilient connection for the parts and at the same time provides a
recess for receiving the end of the shank of the nut").
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments for the patentability
of claim 1, but we find them to be unpersuasive. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith, and
Andren.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites "[t]he assembly
of claim 2, wherein the composite material includes reinforcement fibers."
Br. 24.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not identified where this
feature is present in Sill, and in fact, Sill does not disclose this feature. Br.
8
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
19. In the Answer, the Examiner directs our attention to column 4, lines 28-
36 of Sill. Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner that this portion of Sill
discloses the above-noted feature, and we therefore sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith, and Andren.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 7
Appellants do not make separate arguments for the patentability of
any of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, and 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims as unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith,
and Andren.
Re} ections (II) and (III)
Appellants make no separate arguments relating to Rejections (II) and
(III). See Br. 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 as
unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith, Andren, and Steward and the rejection of
claim 8 as unpatentable over Sill, Hart-Smith, Andren, and Baehre.
Rejection (IV)
Independent claim 16 recites similar language to that discussed above
regarding claim 1, but further requires first and second anchor plates with
associated structure. Br. 26. The Examiner relies on McDonald to teach
first and second anchor plates as recited in claim 16. Non-Final Act. 11-12.
Appellants again argue (i) that Andren does not disclose a set of
fasteners configured for blind engagement and disengagement from a
location proximate a splice plate and (ii) that the cited art teaches away from
the Examiner's proposed combination. See Br. 21. For the reasons
discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we do not agree with Appellants'
arguments on these points.
9
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
Appellants also assert that McDonald uses welded studs 3 6 and
removable nuts 39, which necessarily require access from both sides of the
assembled components and, therefore, preclude blind engagement. Br. 21.
Appellants further argue:
The particular use of the butt joint 40 of [McDonald] on a
horizontally protruding flange of a nuclear reactor vessel (see
FIGS. 1-3 of [McDonald]) and the preference for a configuration
that allows "walking" of associated components (see
[McDonald], col. 3, 11. 28-44) dictates the use of fasteners
accessible from both sides.
Br. 21.
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments because they do not
address the Examiner's reliance on McDonald. The Examiner's proposed
combination does not incorporate welded studs 36 or removable nuts 39
from McDonald. See Non-Final Act. 11-12. Appellants do not explain
persuasively why the structure of the particular butt joint taught by
McDonald would in any way impair the use ofMcDonald'sfzrst and second
anchor plates with the arrangement disclosed by Sill, as is proposed by the
Examiner.
As for the benefit of allowing "walking" of reactor vessel 10 in
McDonald, Appellants provide no persuasive explanation as to why this
function pertains to the Examiner's proposed implementation of first and
second anchor plates in combination with the teachings in Sill. Indeed, it is
not apparent, and Appellants do not explain persuasively, why this function
precludes a configuration for blind engagement in McDonald's own reactor
vessel. As discussed in McDonald, membranes 50, 52 allow the walking
function (McDonald, col. 3, 11. 28--44), and Appellants provide no
10
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
explanation as to how the use of membranes 50, 52 "dictates the use of
fasteners accessible from both sides" (Br. 21) as argued. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16, as well as claims 21 and 22, for
which Appellants do not advance any separate arguments for patentability
(Br. 21 ), as unpatentable over Sill, McDonald, Andren, and Bhergholz.
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 1 7 depends from claim 16 and recites that "the first shell
member and the second shell member each comprises a composite material,
wherein the splice plate comprises a metallic material, and wherein the
anchor plate comprises a metallic material." Br. 2 7. Claim 18 depends from
claim 1 7 and recites that "the composite material includes reinforcement
fibers." Br. 27.
In the rejection of independent claim 16, the Examiner relies on
Andren to teach the recited insert (Non-Final Act. 12-13) and relies on
Bhergholz to teach an arrangement for third and fourth sets of fasteners (Id.
at 13-14).
Addressing the rejection of claims 17 and 18, Appellants contend that
Andren and Bhergholz are directed to connections between metallic
components instead of composite shell members and "[a] person of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to utilize the teachings of [McDonald],
Andren and [Bergholz] with connections between composite shell members,
because of the [ ] fragility of composite materials as compared to metallic
materials." Br. 22 (citing Peterson (US 4,448,565)). The portion of
Peterson cited by Appellants states:
It is, thus, an object of the invention to provide a fastener
member, namely a nut device which is capable of being
11
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
associated with a fragile panel and that can thereafter be utilized
with a male threaded fastener member to compressingly attach a
second work panel to the first fragile member without creating
stresses on the fragile panel which would tend to fracture or
otherwise fail.
Peterson, col. 1, 11. 28-35.
Appellants do not explain persuasively how the use of the teachings in
Andren and Bergholz on metal components, rather than composite
components, precludes the use of these teachings in combination with the
teachings of Sill and McDonald as proposed by the Examiner. In this
regard, Appellants do not assert that either of Andren or Bergholz teaches
away from the use of composite materials or that the implementation of the
Examiner's proposed combination with such materials would have been
beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. Indeed, Sill describes using
metal and composite materials interchangeably for sidewall panels 15 and
16; which; as shown in Figure 3; are riveted together. Sill; col. 4; 11. 29-36.
Thus, the use of metal components in Andren and Bergholz, does not belie
the Examiner's reasoning for combining the teachings of these references
with those of Sill.
The fact that Peterson teaches that problems have occurred with the
use of fasteners with fragile panels does not necessarily undermine the
Examiner's use of the teachings of Andren and Bergholz with composite
panels as taught by Sill. See Non-Final Act. 10 (relying on Sill to teach shell
members comprising composite material including reinforcement fibers); see
also Ans. 8. In other words, Appellants do not provide any persuasive
argument or objective evidence that any problem described in Peterson in
12
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
relation to the materials Peterson describes 5 would also occur in the
Examiner's proposed combination of the teachings of Sill, McDonald,
Andren, and Bergholz. Specifically, we note that the term composite
materials describes a category of materials, and Appellants do not provide
any persuasive evidence that the materials described in Sill would be subject
to the problems described in Peterson, much less that such problems, if
present, would be sufficient to dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art
from combining the cited references as proposed by the Examiner.
Weighing the teachings of Peterson against the Examiner's findings and
proposed rationale for modifying Sill, we agree with the Examiner that the
arrangements recited in claims 1 7 and 18 would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.
Re} ections (V) and (VI)
Appellants do not make separate arguments for the patentability of
either of claims 19 and 20. See Br. 22. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over Sill, McDonald, Andren,
Bergholz, and Jakob and the rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over Sill,
McDonald, Andren, Bergholz, and Steward.
5 Peterson states that there are special problems with "[a] series of structural
plastic materials, which may broadly be described as including some sort of
fill in the thermo-p las tic structure." Peterson, co 1. 1, 11. 14--16 ( emphasis
added).
13
Appeal2014-005836
Application 12/558,235
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 16-22 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
14