Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

12967512 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/967,512 12/14/2010
63759 7590 06/08/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
TERRY L. SCHNEIDER
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.
10-0511-US-NP 1739
EXAMINER
NERANGIS, VICKEY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1768
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TERRY L. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHEN CHRISTENSEN, and JONATHAN H. GOSSE
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1, 4--13, and 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Brief filed March 24, 2014 ("App. Br."), 2.
2 Final Office Action mailed October 24, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
The claims are directed to methods of making fiber reinforced resin
composites. Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claims
on appeal.
1. A method of making a fiber reinforced polymer resin,
compnsmg:
coating reinforcing fibers with a first polymeric resin to form
coated fibers; and
embedding the coated fibers in a second polymeric resin, wherein
a first distortional deformation capability of the first polymeric
resin is greater than a second distortional deformation
capability of the second polymeric resin.
7. A method for making a fiber reinforced polymer
composite, comprising:
forming a polymeric resin matrix;
providing fibers for reinforcing the polymeric resin matrix;
embedding the fibers in the polymeric resin matrix; and
forming a distortional inter-phase region between the fibers
and the polymeric resin matrix for impro-ving load transfer
between the fibers and the polymeric resin matrix.
App. Br. 22-23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to identify the disputed
language).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Kobayashi et al., Improvement in damage
tolerance of CFRP laminate using the hybridization method, 12
Composite Interfaces 629, 629---635 (2005) (hereinafter
"Composite Interfaces");
2
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
2. Claims 1, 4--11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Kobayashi et al., Suppression of microscopic
damage in epoxy-based composites usingflexible interphase, 22
Journal of Materials Science Letters 1315, 1315-1318 (2003)
(hereinafter "Journal of Materials Science Letters");
3. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Composite Interfaces in view of Skinner et al.
(US 7,105,120 B2, issued Sept. 12, 2006) (hereinafter "Skinner");
and
4. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Journal of Materials Science Letters in view of
Skinner.
Examiner's Answer mailed May 27, 2014 ("Ans."), 2-3.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that "it is clear that Composite
Interfaces' disclosure of a 'lower tensile modulus and higher ultimate strain'
is not also a disclosure of a distortional deformation capability." App.
Br. 10. Similarly, Appellants argue that "it is clear that Composite
Interfaces' disclosure of a 'flexible interphase" is not also a disclosure of a
distortional interphase region between fibers and a polymeric resin matrix
for improving load transfer between the fibers and the polymeric resin
matrix," as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner relies upon the theory of inherency in rejecting
claims 1 and 7 as anticipated by Composite Interfaces. Ans. 2. In relying on
a theory of inherency, "the [E]xaminer must provide a basis in fact and/or
3
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Inter. 1990). The Examiner has satisfied that initial burden here.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Composite Interfaces' teaches that "the
coating (i.e., first polymeric resin) on the fiber has a lower tensile modulus
and higher ultimate strain than [the] matrix (i.e., second polymeric resin) and
that a 'flexible interphase' is obtained" (Ans. 4). The Examiner reasonably
concludes that this disclosure corresponds to the first polymeric resin having
a distortional deformation capability that is greater than the distortional
deformation capability of its second polymeric resin, in the broadest
reasonable sense (See Ans. 2, 4). The Examiner also reasonably concludes,
based on this disclosure, that Composite Interfaces' carbon fiber reinforced
plastic laminates will necessarily have a distortional inter-phase region3
between the fibers and the polymeric resin matrix for improving load
transfer between the fibers and the polymeric resin matrix, as recited in
claim 7 (Id.). Appellants have not produced factual evidence rebutting the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
(CCP A 1977) (Once the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to
show inherency, the burden of production shifts to Appellant).
Appellants argue that "Composite Interfaces' tensile modulus and
ultimate strain is a measure of completely different properties than
distortional deformation expressed in terms of von Mises strain
3 Paragraph 22 of the Specification describes the distortional inter-phase
region as a region that experiences a high shear strain due to the mismatch
between the elastic stiffness of the fibers and that of the matrix. Spec. i-f 22.
4
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
performance." Reply Brief filed July 28, 2014 ("Reply Br."), 3. We find
Appellants' argument unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 4),
and Appellants acknowledge (Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 9 (footnote 2), von
Mises strain performance" (Spec. i-f 22) is not a definition, but rather is
provided "for illustrative purposes only" and "not to be construed as limiting
and/or disclaiming the presently claimed subject matter" (footnote 2) in
terms of measuring "distortional deformation capability." Because the
Specification does not define "distortional deformation capability," the term
is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification-i.e., the ease with which a polymer is deformed (Ans. 4).
For the reasons above, we sustain this rejection.
Rejection 2
As with Rejection 1, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient basis or fact in technical reasoning tending to show that
the Journal of Materials Science Letters' epoxy-based woven fabric
composite would necessarily have the distortional deformation capability
recited in claim 1, and would necessarily form a distortional inter-phase
region between the fibers and the matrix, as recited in claim 7. See App.
Br. 13-15. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
The Examiner finds that the Journal of Materials Science Letters
teaches that "the coating (i.e., first polymeric resin) on the glass fiber has a
lower tensile modulus and higher ultimate strain than [the] matrix (i.e.,
second polymeric resin) and that a 'flexible interphase' is obtained"
(Ans. 5). The Examiner reasonably concludes that this disclosure
corresponds to the first polymeric resin having a distortional deformation
capability that is greater than the distortional deformation capability of the
5
Appeal2014-008386
Application 12/967,512
second polymeric resin, in the broadest reasonable sense (See Ans. 2-3, 5).
The Examiner also reasonably concludes, based on this disclosure, that the
Journal of Materials Science Letters' epoxy-based woven fabric composite
will necessarily have a distortional inter-phase region between the fibers and
the matrix, as recited in claim 7 (Id.). Appellants have not produced factual
evidence rebutting the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
For the reasons above, we sustain this rejection.
Rejections 3 & 4
Claim 12 depends from independent claim 7. Appellants contend that
claim 12 is patentable in view of its dependence on claim 7, and because the
combination of references fail to disclose the limitations of claim 7. See
App. Br. 17, 20. Appellants present no additional substantive arguments
regarding Skinner. Id. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claim 12 for
substantially the same reasons as set forth above in regard to claim 7.
With regard to claim 24, Appellants bald assertion that the limitations
of claim 24 are missing from the cited references (App. Br. 18, 21) is
unpersuasive in identifying a reversible error in the Examiner's rejections of
claim 24. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of claim 24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 4--13, and 24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6