Ex Parte Silvanus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13745234 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
13/745,234 01/18/2013 Juergen SILVANUS 1406/758 PCT/US 5965
25297 7590 02/01/2018
Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A.
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard
Suite 550
Morrisville, NC 27560
EXAMINER
GAMINO, CARLOS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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
wehmig@jwth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUERGEN SILVANUS, MARCO PACCHIONE, and
STEFAN ELZE
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 7-9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 18, 2013, as amended;
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated April 6, 2016; Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated October 10, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
dated December 29, 2016, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated
February 27, 2017.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Airbus Operations GmbH, which also is identified
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a friction stir welding process to connect
aircraft fuselage segments. Spec. 1. Claim 1—the sole independent claim
on appeal—is illustrative:
1. A method for connecting two aircraft fuselage segments
and a reinforcing profile arranged in a joint region of the two
aircraft fuselage segments by friction stir welding using a
rotating tool, wherein:
a cover plate is placed onto the aircraft fuselage segments
to be connected above the joint region of the two aircraft
fuselage segments and a joint region of the reinforcing profile;
and
after a friction stir welding process, a remainder of the
cover plate is milled off,
wherein the cover plate comprises an integrally formed
material strip in a center, which material strip is pressed into a
gap between the joint regions during the friction stir welding
process to fill the gap with material supplied by the material
strip,
wherein the rotating tool is rotated and moved along the
cover plate during a first weld,
wherein the welding process is repeated at least once
with the rotating tool, and
wherein the rotating tool is moved in an opposite
direction along the cover plate with the same direction of
rotation as that during the first weld.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight the main
recitation in dispute).
2
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
II. Claims 1—4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gross,3 Miyahara,4 and Yang.5
III. Claims 1—4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gross, Miyahara, and Aoto.6
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that the phrase “opposite direction” in claim
1 is indefinite. Final Act. 2. We disagree. Appellant recites in claim 1 a
method that includes moving a rotating tool “along the cover plate” during a
first weld and, subsequently, moving the rotating tool “in an opposite
direction along the cover plate.” Plainly, the recited opposite direction is
opposite to the direction of movement used in the recited first weld.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not
sustained.
Rejections II and III
Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing on recitations
appearing in claim 1. App. Br. 3-16; Reply Br. 1-9. In accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative, and decide the
appeal based on the representative claim alone.
3 US 2009/0294018 Al, published December 3, 2009 (“Gross”).
4 JP 2007-289976 A, published November 8, 2007 (“Miyahara”), as
translated.
5 US 2011/0076419 Al, published March 31, 2011 (“Yang”).
6 US 7,036,707 B2, issued May 2, 2006 (“Aota”).
3
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
The Examiner finds that Gross discloses friction stir welding to join
aircraft fuselage segments. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Yang
teaches providing a cover plate over the welded seam to prevent abnormal
grain growth in the weld. Id. at 4. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that
Aota provides a reason to include a thickened region, such as a plate, over
the welded seam to avoid formation of a dent along the welded seam. Id. at
8-9. We refer to the Final Office Action for the Examiner’s well-stated
explanation of these findings. See id. at 3-10. Appellant does not directly
dispute the foregoing findings in either the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief.
At issue in this case is the Examiner’s further finding that Miyahara
teaches that repeating a friction stir weld in an opposite direction provides a
benefit in that it improves the shear strength of the weld. Final Act. 4-5
(citing Miyahara 15, 21, Figures 1—4). According to Miyahara, removing
the rotating tool at the end of a single-pass weld results in a cavity formed by
the tool’s pin close to the unsealed portion of the joined parts, thereby
weakening the weld. Miyahara 8-9.7 To solve that problem, Miyahara
teaches continuing the weld by moving the tool in the reverse direction
along the weld, so that the cavity is located away from the unsealed edge.
Id. at ^ 15, 21. That process is depicted in Miyahara’s Figure 1, which we
reproduce below.
7 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s reliance on the machine-
translation of Miyahara. We cite to the same translation.
4
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
l m l 1 l
Figure 1 is a schematic view showing the manufacturing method of joining
members by friction stir welding. Id. at ^ 17. In the Figure, Miyahara
depicts a rotating tool being moved along a straight weld path from a first
end 14a to second end 14b, and then returning in the opposite direction
along the weld path to an intermediate location at which the tool is
withdrawn. Miyahara’s Figure 1 depicts a direction of rotation of the tool as
it moves along the first direction, but does not depict the direction of rotation
of the tool during the return.
Appellant presents two substantive arguments against application of
Miyahara’s teaching to the welding process of Gross. First, Appellant
argues that Miyahara is “silent regarding the direction of rotation when the
rotating tool and its pin is moved back.” App. Br. 14. In response to that
observation, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reason to maintain the same direction of rotation throughout the
weld process—namely, so that the return path of the weld process is
performed before the material subjected to the first pass has solidified. Ans.
4. The Examiner also finds that maintaining the same direction of rotation
would speed up the process, and that “there are only two options and each is
5
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
well within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art, absent any
unexpected results.” Id. at 4-5. Appellant does not contest these findings in
the Reply Brief. Nor do we find in Appellant’s Specification any suggestion
of unexpected results or criticality to the direction of rotation of the tool.
See Spec. 5, lines 25-26 (“[T]he tool can be moved either in the same
direction or in the opposite direction, with the same or opposite direction of
rotation.”).
On this appeal record, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill would have had a
reason to maintain the same tool rotation throughout the weld process.
Appellant also argues that Yang teaches away from performing a
second weld pass because it would result in “extraneous material of the top
sheet 36 which contains abnormal grain growth to move into the weld
seam.” App. Br. 10. However, Appellant presents no evidence to support
that contention. Nor does Appellant’s contention appear to be consistent
with Yang’s teaching that the undesired abnormal grain growth arises from
unrecrystallized microstructure that resides solely in the sheet material that
is outside of the weld. See Yang 13 (explaining that the undesired
microstructure is contained in that portion of the cover sheet that may
subsequently be removed by grinding). In any event, Appellant does not
present persuasive evidence that a possibility of introduction of
unrecrystallized microstructure, if any, that might result from performing a
second-pass weld would discourage one of ordinary skill from following the
express teaching of Miyahara that such a second-pass weld yields improved
shear strength.
6
Appeal 2017-006161
Application 13/745,234
Appellant’s remaining arguments concerning the lack of any single
reference disclosing all of the recited elements are not persuasive where, as
here, the Examiner’s Rejections are based on the combined teachings of the
cited prior art.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in connection with either of Rejection II and III.
Accordingly, those Rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims and 7-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—4 and 7-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 are 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).
AFFIRMED
7