The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2021

2021001151 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2021)

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.
14/918,899 10/21/2015 Robert A. DiChiara 15-2095-US-NP (10623-61) 1418
104057 7590 07/30/2021
Joseph M. Rolnicki
Sandberg Phoenix and von Gontard
120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Clayton, MO 63105
EXAMINER
TRAVERS, MATTHEW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2021 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
uspto@sandbergphoenix.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. DICHIARA
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 12, 22, 24–26, 28, 30, 32–34, and
36–44, which are the only pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is a second appeal in the present application. The
Board issued a first Decision on Appeal (hereinafter “Decision” or “Dec.”)
on February 19, 2020, in Appeal 2019-004475. We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a nut plate and gang channel
constructed of an aluminum oxide ceramic material reinforced with
silicon-carbide crystal whiskers. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 11, 28, and 36 are
independent. Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter.
11. A method of securing components together comprising:
constructing a nut plate (10) of a powder of a mixture of
ceramic material powder (24) and crystal whiskers;
providing a plurality of fastener holes (18) in the nut
plate (10);
providing a first component (42) with fastener holes (46);
providing a second component (44) with fastener holes
(48);
positioning the first component (42) adjacent the nut
plate (10) and aligning the fastener holes (46) of the first
component (42) with fastener holes (18) of the nut plate (10);
positioning the second component (44) adjacent the nut
plate (10) and aligning fastener holes (48) of the second
component (44) with fastener holes (18) of the nut plate (10);
inserting fasteners (52) through the aligned fastener holes
(46) of the first component (42) and the fastener holes (18) of
the nut plate (10) and inserting fasteners (52) through the
fastener holes (48) of the second component (44) aligned with
the fastener holes (18) of the nut plate (10);
machining external screw threads on graphite preform
inserts;
providing the plurality of fastener holes (18) in the nut
plate (10) by positioning the graphite preform inserts (36)
inside the powder of the mixture of ceramic material powder
(24) and crystal whiskers at positions of the fastener holes (18);
simultaneously heating and pressurizing the powder of
the mixture of ceramic material powder (24) and crystal
whiskers creating the nut plate (10) with screw thread interior
surfaces around the graphite preform inserts and,
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

3
removing the graphite preform inserts (36) from the nut
plate (10) creating screw threaded interior surfaces (20) inside
the nut plate (10).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Okuda US 5,246,894 Sept. 21, 1993
His US 5,405,227 Apr. 11, 1995
Ruckey US 2011/0064515 A1 Mar. 17, 2011
Marques US 2014/0366967 A1 Dec. 18, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 11, 12, 22, 24–26, 28, 30, 32–34, and 36–442 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckey, His, Marques,
and Okuda.
OPINION
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues independent claims 11,
28, and 36 together, and relies on these arguments for all of the dependent
claims as well. See Appeal Br. 6–11. We decide the appeal of this rejection
on the basis of claim 11, and claims 12, 22, 24–26, 28, 30, 32–34, and 36–44
stand or fall with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the
Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of
rejection of a group of claims argued together).
The Examiner finds that Ruckey discloses a method of securing
components together comprising, in pertinent part, constructing a nut plate

2 The Examiner discusses claims 41–44 on page 8 of the Final Action.
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

4
(anchor plate 36) and a plurality of fastener holes (threaded openings in
bosses 40, 42) in the nut plate. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that
Ruckey does not disclose forming the nut plate of a powder of a mixture of
ceramic material powder and crystal whiskers or forming the fastener holes
in the manner called for in claim 11. Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner finds that His teaches that fasteners, such as nuts, “may
be made from a powder mixture of ceramic material powder and crystal
whiskers.” Final Act. 2 (citing His, col. 1, ll. 16–24); see His, col. 1, ll. 8–24
(teaching fasteners, such as nuts, made of a composite material comprising a
ceramic matrix having reinforcement filaments in the form of silicon carbide
or silicon nitride whiskers, wherein the fasteners are obtained by sintering a
refractory powder (SiAlON or Si3N4) having the whiskers incorporated
therein). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use a
powder mixture as taught by His in forming Ruckey’s nut plate in order to
provide the benefits taught by His. Final Act. 2–3 (citing His, col. 1,
ll. 25–34).
The Examiner finds that Marques teaches providing threaded fastener
holes in a sintered ceramic structure by machining external screw threads on
graphite preform inserts (graphite screws 120), positioning an insert inside a
ceramic powder mixture (green-state structure 140) at the position of the
fastener hole, sintering the ceramic powder mixture to create a product with
screw thread interior surfaces of internal threads around the inserts, and
removing the inserts from the body creating a screw threaded interior surface
inside the body. Final Act. 3 (citing Marques, code (57); ¶¶ 23, 26;
Figs. 5, 6). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to form
the threads in Ruckey’s nut plate holes by the method taught by Marques in
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

5
order to “obviate[] expensive machining options.” Final Act. 3 (citing
Marques ¶ 9).
The Examiner finds that Marques does not teach that the sintering
necessarily involves simultaneously heating and pressurizing the ceramic
material powder, but finds that Okuda “teaches sintering a ceramic body
under heat and pressure.” Final Act. 3 (citing Okuda, col. 4, ll. 56–68). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use a combination of
heat and pressure in sintering the nut plate of the Ruckey/His/Marques
combination, as taught by Okuda, to ensure “a properly formed dense
product as would be understood in the art.” Final Act. 3.
In the Decision in the prior appeal, the Board found that “a
preponderance of the evidence in the record before [the Board] supports the
Examiner’s finding that Marques’s ‘green-state structure 140’ comprises
powder, albeit in a compacted state.” Dec. 6; see also Dec. 2 (reproducing
claim 11 as presented at the time of the first appeal, including the steps of
“constructing a nut plate (10) of a ceramic material powder (24)” and
providing fastener holes in the nut plate “by positioning inserts (36) inside
the ceramic material powder (24) at positions of the fastener holes (18)”).
Subsequent to the Decision in Appellant’s prior appeal, Appellant has
amended claim 11, in pertinent part, by changing “ceramic material powder
(24)” to “powder of a mixture of ceramic material powder (24) and crystal
whiskers.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Appellant asserts that “[t]he meaning of the term ‘powder’ as used [in
the present application] is the commonly understood meaning of the word
‘powder’ and the dictionary meaning of the word ‘powder’ as being a
particulate matter in a finely divided state of finely dispersed solid
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

6
particles.” Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellant contends that “[t]he ‘powder’ is
loose and uncompacted and does not include holes in the powder” and that
“[t]his is the core inventive concept of the invention.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant argues that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would
understand that the powder mixture 22 referred to in the application claims
and referred to in the application is a powder of a mixture of a ceramic
material powder and crystal whiskers in a powder form of the mixture, and
not a green state structure.” Appeal Br. 8.
This line of argument essentially simply re-hashes the arguments
made, and found unpersuasive, in the prior appeal. See Dec. 4–6. Appellant
does not come forward with any evidence to contradict the Examiner’s
finding that Marques’s green-state structure 140 is a ceramic powder
mixture (Final Act. 3); see Marques ¶ 22 (teaching the refractory material
can be a mixture of ceramic and other materials). This finding is supported
by a preponderance of the evidence, for essentially the reasons set forth on
pages 4–6 of the Decision. Appellant’s amendment changing “ceramic
material powder (24)” to “powder of a mixture of ceramic material powder
(24) and crystal whiskers” in claim 11 does not change the analysis in any
material way, and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention
from the combination set forth in the rejection; the green state of the mixture
of ceramic powder and crystal whiskers is still a powder, albeit in a
compacted state, for the reasons set forth on pages 4–6 of the Decision.
Neither does Appellant’s asserted construction of the term “powder”
persuade us that a green state of the mixture of ceramic powder and crystal
whiskers of the combination is not a “powder of a mixture of ceramic
material powder (24) and crystal whiskers” as recited in claim 11. The
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

7
asserted definition does not exclude a compacted state of the particulate
matter; even particulate matter in a compacted state is in a finely divided
state of finely dispersed solid particles. Further, as the Examiner points out,
paragraphs 26 and 27 of Appellant’s Specification, which disclose the
method of forming the nut plate, and the interior bores with internal screw
threaded surfaces, do not specify the state of the powder (i.e., whether it is in
a loose and uncompacted state without holes), thus, undermining Appellant’s
assertion that this is a core concept of the invention. See Ans. 4.
Moreover, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of
a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that
the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.” Bancorp
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1275
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, consistent with the doctrine of claim differentiation,
Appellant’s claim 41, which depends from claim 11, raises a presumption
that “powder of a mixture” in claim 11 has a meaning that is broader than
“particulate matter in a finely divided state of finely dispersed solid
particles”; similarly, claim 42, which also depends from claim 11, raises a
presumption that “powder of a mixture” recited in claim 11 is not limited to
powder that “is loose and uncompacted and does not have holes in the
powder.”3 See Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appellant also argues that inserting threaded graphite screw inserts
into machined openings in the green-state-structure, as taught by Marques,
does not constitute “positioning the graphite preform inserts inside the
powder of a mixture of ceramic material powder and crystal whiskers,” as

3 Appellant does not present any separate arguments for the dependent
claims. See Appeal Br. 6–11.
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

8
recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Marques ¶ 24); see also
Marques ¶ 26 (teaching inserting graphite screws 120 into machined
openings 130). In fact, Appellant contends that Marques’s teaching of
positioning an insert inside a hole or opening that has previously been drilled
into a green-state structure “teaches away from positioning an insert inside a
powder of a mixture,” as recited in claim 11. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
submits that the rejection provides no explanation “as to how use of the
green-state structure disclosed in the Marques reference would obviously
lend itself to being applicable to a powder of a mixture of ceramic powder
and crystal whiskers.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
This line of argument essentially simply re-hashes arguments
presented in the earlier appeal and addressed by the Board. See Dec. 6–7.
For the reasons set forth in the Decision, these arguments are not persuasive.
See Dec. 6–7. The limitation “positioning the graphite preform inserts (36)
inside the powder of the mixture of ceramic material powder (24) and crystal
whiskers at positions of the fastener holes (18)” does not exclude holes or
otherwise distinguish over inserting the inserts into holes in the powder
structure. Appellant’s contentions that Marques teaches away and that the
rejection lacks explanation as to how the use of a green-state structure would
lend itself to being applicable to a powder of a mixture of ceramic powder
and crystal whiskers (Appeal Br. 9–11) are unavailing because they are
predicated on Appellant’s unsupported position, discussed above, that
Marques’s “green-state structure” does not comprise a “powder of a
mixture.”
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we sustain the
Appeal 2021-001151
Application 14/918,899

9
rejection of claim 11, and of claims 12, 22, 24–26, 28, 30, 32–34, and
36–44, which fall with claim 11, as being unpatentable over Ruckey, His,
Marques, and Okuda.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 22, 24–26, 28, 30, 32–34,
and 36–44 is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12, 22,
24–26, 28,
30, 32–34,
36–44
103 Ruckey, His,
Marques, Okuda
11, 12, 22,
24–26, 28,
30, 32–34,
36–44

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