Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

11286487 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/286,487 11/23/2005 Dawn White DWH-12502/29 8451
25006 7590 06/29/2012
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
SELLS, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAWN WHITE
____________

Appeal 2010-006676
Application 11/286,487
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of embedding
fibers using ultrasonic consolidation.

Appeal 2010-006676
Application 10/286,487

2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of co-applying fibers and layers using ultrasonic
consolidation, comprising the steps of:
providing fibers and layers of material to be consolidated;
providing a mechanism to maintain the fibers in a parallel, spaced
apart relationship prior to consolidation; and
ultrasonically consolidating the layers without melting such that the
fibers are in contact with and embedded between layers of material.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
White ‘643 US 2002/0071643 A1 Jun. 13, 2002
White ‘349 US 6,463,349 B2 Oct. 8, 2002
Leemon US 6,432,236 B1 Aug. 8, 2002
White ‘365 US 6,685,365 B2 Feb. 3, 2004

Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by White ‘643. Claim 2 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over White ‘643 in view of
Leemon. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by White ‘349.
We summarily affirm the § 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 4
and the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 7 over White ‘643, which
rejections have not been contested by the presentation of any substantive
arguments. We reverse the other stated rejections for substantially the
reasons argued by Appellant.
Appeal 2010-006676
Application 10/286,487

3
The offer to submit an amendment to claim 4 by Appellant does not
overcome the non-contested rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Consequently, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejection of claim 4.
Concerning the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over White ‘643, we
observe that the statement in footnote 2 of the Appeal Brief does not raise a
substantive argument against the Examiner’s anticipation rejection not
withstanding Appellant’s additional reference to the footnote in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1). As to the anticipation rejection of claim 7 over White
‘643, the only arguments presented in the Appeal Brief respecting this claim
relate to another anticipation rejection over White ‘349, not the rejection
over White ‘643.
Consequently, we affirm the above-mentioned anticipation rejection
of claims 1 and 7 over White ‘643 as this rejection is not contested by
Appellant.
As for the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 3 through 6 over
White ‘643, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not carried the
burden to establish that White describes a consolidation method that utilizes
a foil layer to which the fibers are attached (claim 3), a “tacking” process to
embed a layer of fibers in a foil (claim 4), and/or a method that intersperses
metal fibers between reinforcing fibers (claims 5 and 6) as a mechanism for
maintaining the fibers in parallel, spaced apart relationship, all prior to
consolidation (App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 1 and 2). Consequently, we reverse
the anticipation rejection over White ‘643 as to dependent claims 3-6.
Appeal 2010-006676
Application 10/286,487

4
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 2 over White ‘643 in
view of Leemon, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established that Leemon teaches or would have suggested the use of a
consolidation method that utilizes a scrim to which the fibers are attached as
a pre-consolidation mechanism for maintaining fibers in a parallel, spaced
apart relationship. In this regard, a scrim is generally understood to be a
woven fabric, such as the fine metal or alloy mesh described in Appellant’s
Specification (p. 3, ll. 9 and 10). The Examiner has not established that the
relied on passage of Leemon relating to a pre-peg of fibers combined
together with thermoplastic material represents a scrim mechanism for
holding fibers in a parallel, spaced apart relationship (Ans. 7; Leemon, col.
1, ll. 38-40). Thus, the Examiner has not established that the Leemon in
combination with White ’643 would have suggested employing the scrim of
Leemon in White’s process as Leemon does not describe a scrim that would
be useful in the process of White ’643.
It follows that we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 2 over
White ‘643 in view of Leemon.
Finally, regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 7 over White
‘349, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not carried the burden
to establish that White ‘349 describes a method corresponding to the method
of claim 7, wherein a product of alternating encapsulation material or
another metal, and fibers is encapsulated between layers of foil by relying on
layer 54 of White ‘349 as providing both one of the encapsulating foils and
combination of encapsulating material or other metal and fiber (Ans. 9).
Consequently, we reverse the anticipation rejection over White ‘349.

Appeal 2010-006676
Application 10/286,487

5
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention; and to reject claims
1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by White ‘643 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by White ‘643; to reject claim 2under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over White ‘643 in view of Leemon; and to
reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by White ‘349
is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

sld