Rohr, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2020

14836712 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2020)

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.
14/836,712 08/26/2015 Christian Soria 1349-81635 8746
50811 7590 02/14/2020
O''''Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
MELENDEZ, ARMAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2020 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):
shenry@osheagetz.com
uspto@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN SORIA and CHRISTOPHER C. KOROLY
____________

Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–23.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Rohr, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed October 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3.
2 Final Office Action entered May 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced
below with contested subject matter italicized:
1. A manufacturing process, comprising:
forming a thrust reverser cascade for an aircraft
propulsion system;
the thrust reverser cascade including an array of vanes
connected to and extending laterally between longitudinally
extending first and second strongback rails;
wherein the forming includes additive manufacturing the
first strongback rail; and
wherein the first strongback rail includes a length of
fiber which extends more than eighty-five percent of a
longitudinal length of the first strongback rail.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains only the following rejections in the
Examiner’s Answer entered January 25, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 4, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Calder3 in view of Nawaz4;
II. Claims 2, 3, and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Calder in view of Nawaz and Mark5; and
III. Claims 13–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Calder in view of Nawaz and Mark.

3 US 2015/0226157 A1, published August 12, 2015.
4 US 4,596,621, issued January 24, 1986.
5 US 2015/0165691 A1, published June 18, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each issue the appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Rejection I
We turn first to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of Nawaz.
To address this rejection, Appellant presents arguments directed to
claim 1 only, to which we accordingly limit our discussion. Appeal Br. 9–
11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
According to Appellant’s Specification, typical aircraft propulsion
systems, such as turbofan turbine engines, include a thrust reverser for
redirecting bypass air forward to generate reverse thrust. Spec. ¶ 2. The
Specification explains that several types of thrust reversers are known in the
art, many of which include a cascade array, which provides a series of
aerodynamic vanes for redirecting the bypass air in a desired forward
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

4
direction during reverse thrust operation. Id.
Claim 1 recites a manufacturing process comprising, in part, forming
a thrust reverser cascade for an aircraft propulsion system, where the
forming includes additive manufacturing a first strongback rail that includes
a length of fiber which extends more than eighty-five percent of a
longitudinal length of the first strongback rail.
Calder discloses thrust reverser cascade 100 comprising frame 102
and body 104, which form longitudinally extending support rails 108
(strongback rails) and arrays of vanes 110 that connect to and extend
laterally between support rails 108 (strongback rails). Calder ¶¶ 15, 16; Fig.
3. Calder discloses forming frame 102 and body 104—including support
rails 108 (strongback rails) and vanes 110—using an additive manufacturing
process, such as three-dimensional printing. Calder ¶¶ 17, 18, 28, 29; Fig. 6.
Calder discloses that suitable materials for forming thrust reverser cascade
100 using additive manufacturing include fiber-reinforced polymers. Calder
¶ 31.
The Examiner finds that Calder does not explicitly disclose that
support rails 108 (strongback rails) include a length of fiber that extends
more than eighty-five percent of a longitudinal length of a first support rail
108 (strongback rail), and the Examiner relies on Nawaz for suggesting
inclusion of such a length of fiber in support rails 108 (stronback rails) of
Calder’s thrust reverser cascade. Final Act. 3–4.
Nawaz discloses producing a composite cascade for a thrust reverser
unit using “reinforced continuous load carrying fibers.” Nawaz col. 1, ll. 7–
11, 27–28. More specifically, Nawaz discloses producing cascade 10 by
stacking first plurality of continuous fibers 24 one on top of the other to
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

5
form vane 12; stacking second plurality of continuous fibers 32 one on top
of the other, and spaced apart from and parallel to first fibers 24, to form
adjacent parallel vane 12; stacking third plurality of continuous fibers 36 one
on top of the other, and weaving continuous fibers 36 through first 24 and
second 32 pluralities of fibers 24 to form intersecting beam 14 (first
strongback rail including a length of fiber that extends more than eighty-five
percent of a longitudinal length of the first strongback rail); and stacking
fourth plurality of continuous fibers 38 one on top of the other, and spaced
apart from and parallel to third fibers 36, and weaving continuous fibers 38
through first 24 and second 32 pluralities of fibers 24, to form adjacent beam
14 (second strongback rail). Nawaz col. 2, ll. 4–21; Figs. 1–3. Nawaz
discloses that the “fibers may be of a Kevlar epoxy impregnated yarn,” and
explains that by “weaving the continuous epoxy coated fibers to form the
vanes and beams of the cascade 10, the cascade 10 is formed with
continuous load carrying fibers aligned in the direction of maximum loads
placed thereon.” Nawaz col. 2, ll. 21–22, 43–47.
Nawaz discloses that so producing a thrust reverser cascade using
beams and vanes formed of reinforced continuous fibers reduces the overall
weight of the cascade. Nawaz col. 1, ll. 27–34. Nawaz further explains that
“aligning the continuous fibers in the direction of the maximum loads on the
cascade” greatly improves the “overall strength of the cascade.” Nawaz col.
1, ll. 32–34.
In view of these disclosures in Calder and Nawaz, the Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included
a length of fiber that extended more than 85% of the length of the
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

6
strongback rails in the method of Calder, as suggested by Nawaz, in order to
reduce the weight of the component part as well as increase its strength.”
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that if one of ordinary skill in the art were going to
incorporate a fiber that extends more than eighty-five percent of a
longitudinal length of a beam (strongback rail) as “allegedly taught in
Nawaz” into Calder’s support rails, the ordinarily skilled artisan would look
to Nawaz to understand how to do so as taught by Nawaz, because Calder
does not teach or suggest how to manufacture its support rails using a length
of fiber that extends more than eighty-five percent of a longitudinal length of
the support rails. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant argues that Nawaz discloses
producing its thrust reverser cascade by a hand lay-up technique, and “there
is no teaching or suggestion in Nawaz that its fibers can be used without its
hand lay-up technique.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Nawaz col. 2). Appellant
argues that Calder discloses that its thrust reverser cascade costs
significantly less than such “current resin/graphite composite resin transfer
molded and hand lay-up thrust reverser cascades” disclosed in Nawaz.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that this disclosure in Calder teaches away
from a modification that would require use of a hand lay-up fiber technique
because such a modification would negate the benefit of Calder’s invention
of costing significantly less than thrust reverser cascades produced using a
hand lay-up technique. Id. Thus, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined “the teachings of Calder with the
teachings of Nawaz” as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 10–11.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, for reasons that follow.
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

7
As discussed above, Nawaz discloses that producing a thrust reverser
cascade from beams (strongback rails) formed of reinforced continuous
fibers (fibers having a length that extends more than eighty-five percent of a
longitudinal length of the strongback rails) reduces the overall weight of the
cascade, and greatly improves its overall strength. This disclosure in Nawaz
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to form Calder’s
longitudinally extending support rails using reinforced continuous fibers as
disclosed in Nawaz, to realize the benefits of reduced weight and greatly
improved strength in Calder’s thrust reverser cascade. Plantronics, Inc. v.
Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[M]otivation to combine
may be found explicitly or implicitly in [inter alia,] market forces; design
incentives; . . . any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
time of invention . . . ; and the background knowledge, creativity, and
common sense of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).
Appellant is correct that Calder does not disclose how to manufacture
the longitudinally extending support rails disclosed in the reference using a
length of fiber that extends more than eighty-five percent of a longitudinal
length of the support rails. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br.
10), however, any cost associated with forming the longitudinally extending
support rails of Calder’s thrust reverser cascade with reinforced continuous
fibers using a hand lay-up technique as disclosed in Nawaz would not have
negated the advantages imparted to the cascade from doing so—reduced
weight and greatly improved strength—which would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with a reason to so produce Calder’s longitudinally
extending support rails, despite the potential reduced cost efficiencies.
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

8
Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825
F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although modification of the movable
blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar,
‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine.’” (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2006))); Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349
n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the
expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to
modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another”); Orthopedic Equipment Company, Inc. et al. v. United States, 702
F.2d 1005, 1013 (1983) (“the fact that the two disclosed apparatus would not
be combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying
that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art felt that there was
some technological incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only
the latter fact is telling on the issue of nonobviousness.”); In re Farrenkopf,
713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“additional expense associated with the
addition of inhibitors would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art”).
Furthermore, as the Examiner explains in the Answer (Ans. 3), Mark
evidences that additive manufacturing methods were known in the art before
the effective filing date of the present application for forming continuous
fiber-reinforced composite materials comprised of a continuous single or
multistrand fiber core coated or impregnated with a polymer or resin. Mark
¶¶ 6, 39–42. Although Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
may have looked to Nawaz to gain an understanding of how to incorporate
Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

9
continuous fibers into Calder’s longitudinally extending support rails (a fiber
that extends more than eighty-five percent of a longitudinal length of a first
strongback rail), Calder’s disclosure of the significant cost of labor intensive
lay-up processes (i.e., Nawaz’s hand lay-up techniques) would have
prompted the ordinarily skilled artisan to seek alternative manufacturing
techniques. Such an ordinarily skilled artisan, consequently, would have
looked to the additive manufacturing methods for forming continuous fiber-
reinforced composite materials disclosed in Mark. Appellant has not filed a
Reply Brief or otherwise objected to the Examiner’s reliance upon Mark as
evidence in response to Appellant’s arguments.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been limited to
forming Calder’s longitudinally extending support rails with reinforced
continuous fibers using a hand lay-up technique as disclosed in Nawaz.
Rather, Mark evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art could have
alternatively used an additive manufacturing technique to produce
longitudinally extending support rails with reinforced continuous fibers for
Calder’s thrust reverser cascade. In so forming Calder’s thrust reverser
cascade, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have realized the benefits
disclosed in Nawaz of reducing the overall weight of the cascade and greatly
improving its overall strength by using reinforced continuous fibers, while
also achieving significant cost savings relative to use of a hand lay-up
technique.
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 11,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of
Nawaz.

Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

10
Rejection II
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of Nawaz and
Mark. To address this rejection, Appellant relies on the arguments
Appellant presents for claim 1 (discussed above), and argues that Mark does
not cure the deficiencies of Calder and Nawaz. Appeal Br. 11. Because
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments
also do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2,
3, and 5–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of
Nawaz and Mark, which we accordingly sustain.
Rejection III
Finally, we turn to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of Nawaz and Mark.
To address this rejection, Appellant argues that “the teachings of Calder and
Nawaz are not properly combinable” for the same reasons that Appellant
presents for claim 1 (discussed above). Appeal Br. 11. Because Appellant’s
arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments also do not
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Calder in view of Nawaz and Mark,
which we accordingly sustain.

Appeal 2019-003291
Application 14/836,712

11
CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 11, 12 103 Calder, Nawaz 1, 4, 11, 12
2, 3, 5–10

103 Calder, Nawaz,
Mark
2, 3, 5–10

13–23 103 Calder, Nawaz,
Mark
13–23
Overall
Outcome
1–23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED