The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

14740493 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
14/740,493 06/16/2015 Jose L. Encinosa 14-2250-US-
NP (BNG 3B6)
1317
102250 7590 04/20/2020
DASCENZO Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1555
Portland, OR 97205
EXAMINER
DULKO, MARTA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
boeing@dascenzoiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE L. ENCINOSA, SAMUEL F. ZAMBRANA,
DANIEL M. ROTTER, MICHAEL ROBERT CHAPMAN,
STEPHEN K. HALLADIN, BENJAMIN BOWEN LEE,
JOSHUA DEE LITTLE, DOUGLAS ALAN MCCARVILLE,
JASON A. MEDENCIY, RUSSELL D. CHIUPKA,
MARCIN ARTUR RABIEGA, ANDREY F. YURCHIK,
MARTIN W. HANSEN, and THOMAS P. HARPER

Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493
Technology Center 1700

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JULIA HEANEY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–35.2 See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed June 16, 2015 (“Spec.”)
Final Office Action dated Mar. 21, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief dated
Aug. 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 8, 2019
(“Ans.”), and Reply Brief dated May 8, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies “The Boeing Company” as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a ply composite structure fabrication
method with a carrier transfer device to transfer ply segments. Spec. ¶ 5.
Claim 20, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal:
20. A method of fabricating a composite structure, the method
comprising:
conveying a selected ply carrier from a ply kitting area to
a selected location along a length of an elongate forming
mandrel that defines an elongate ply forming surface, wherein
the elongate ply forming surface is shaped to define a surface
contour of the composite structure and is configured to receive a
plurality of ply segments to define a plurality of plies of
composite material that at least partially defines the composite
structure, and further wherein the conveying includes conveying
with a carrier transfer device;
translating a forming machine along the length of the
elongate forming mandrel to the selected location, wherein the
forming machine is configured to move along the length of the
elongate forming mandrel independent of the carrier transfer
device;
receiving the selected ply carrier from the carrier transfer
device and with the forming machine;
deforming, with the forming machine, the selected ply
carrier and a respective ply segment, which is supported by the
selected ply carrier, over a selected portion of the elongate ply
forming surface;
releasing the respective ply segment from the selected ply
carrier while retaining the respective ply segment on the selected
portion of the elongate ply forming surface;
returning, with the forming machine, the selected ply
carrier to the ply kitting area; and
repeating the conveying, the translating, the receiving, the
deforming, the releasing, and the returning with a plurality of ply
carriers, which each supports a respective ply segment, to locate
the plurality of ply segments on the elongate ply forming surface
and at least partially define an uncured composite structure.
Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493

3
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sarh US 4,512,837 Apr. 23, 1985
Nelson US 2004/0098852 A1 May 27, 2004
Anderson et al. US 2010/0230202 A1 Sept. 16, 2010

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 20–23, 29, and 31–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Nelson. Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Anderson. Final
Act. 5–6.
3. Claims 26, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nelson. Final Act. 6–7.
4. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Nelson and Sarh. Final Act. 7.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Nelson discloses a method of fabricating a
composite structure comprising conveying a selected ply carrier from a ply
kitting area to a selected location along a length of an elongate forming
mandrel that defines an elongate ply forming surface configured to receive a
plurality of ply segments, and using the forming surface to deform the
selected ply carrier and a respective ply segment, which is supported by the
Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493

4
selected ply carrier, as recited in claim 20. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner
finds that the backing paper 92 and strip material 62 inside each of Nelson’s
dispensers 36 correspond respectively to the “selected ply carrier” and
“plurality of ply segments” recited in claim 20. Id. at 3–4 (citing Nelson
Figs. 1, 2). Nelson Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Nelson Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view showing material dispensers 64, 66
housing strip material 62 rolled onto spool 90, which is unrolled in order to
apply the strip material to work surface 16. Nelson ¶¶ 9–10, 23.
Appellant argues that Nelson’s material strips 62 and backing paper
92 do not read on the “ply segments” and “ply carrier” recited in the claims.
Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues that that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that “ply segments” are segments of a larger
ply that are laid up sequentially along the length of the elongate ply forming
surface during the repeating steps of claim 20. Id. Appellant argues that
Nelson’s material strips 62: (1) are not ply segments but long strips or rolls
Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493

5
of composite; (2) are not laid up sequentially along the length of work
surface 16; and (3) span an entirety of a desired portion of the length of the
work surface and are then cut-to-length by cutters 102. Id. at 13 (citing
Nelson ¶ 24, Figs. 1, 2).
Appellant’s argument persuasively identifies reversible error. We
have considered the claim limitations “ply segments” and “ply carrier” in
light of the claim language and Specification, and determine that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms does not encompass
Nelson’s material strips 62 and backing paper 92. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would not understand a roll of material to be a ply segment, or that
Nelson’s material strip is supported by its backing paper at the point it is
deformed on the work surface. Nelson ¶ 24, Fig. 2. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 20.
We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 21–35 for the same
reasons as discussed above. Because we find reversible error, we need not
reach Appellant’s additional arguments for reversal.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2019-004235
Application 14/740,493

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20–23, 29
31–35
102(a)(1) Nelson 20–23, 29,
31–35
24, 25 103 Nelson, Anderson 24, 25
26, 27, 30 103 Nelson 26, 27, 30
28 103 Nelson, Sarh 28
Overall
Outcome
20–35

REVERSED