The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2020005301 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
15/591,903 05/10/2017 Richard Roberts 16-0247-US-NP 1809
77028 7590 09/01/2021
NovaTech IP Law
1001 Ave. Pico, Suite C500
San Clemente, CA 92673
EXAMINER
OSELE, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 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):
karin@loyola.net
patentadmin@boeing.com
soneill@novatechip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD ROBERTS
____________

Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–15 and 17–21 of Application
15/591,903. Final Act. (June 21, 2019). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’903 Application describes a system for resin infusing a
composite preform. Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification, the system
reduces the presence of resin starved portions of the composite. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.
For ease of reference, we reproduce Figure 2 from the ’903
Application’s Specification below.
Figure 2 is a schematic cross-sectional
view of a system for resin infusing a composite
preform. Id. ¶ 27.
As shown in Figure 2, composite preform 10 includes a finger region
16 in the form of a padup, which is a buildup due to the presence of
additional plies of reinforcing material to provide local structural
reinforcement. Id. ¶ 37. According to the Specification, “[p]adups, and other
portions of composite preform having a locally increased thickness,
generally require a higher volume of the resin per unit of preform surface
area and may be more susceptible to resin starvation and local dry spots.” Id.
System 100 for resin infusing composite preform can comprises a tool
110 having an upper tool surface 111 on which composite preform 10 is
located. Id. ¶ 34. A first vacuum bagging film 130 covers composite preform
10 to define a sealed first chamber 140 between tool surface 111 and first
vacuum bagging film 130. Id.
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
3
Bridge structure 120 is located on the first vacuum bagging film 130
over padup region 16. Id. Bridge structure 120 as a lower surface 121 that
defines a recess forming cavity 122 over first vacuum bagging film 130. Id.
Second vacuum bagging film 160 is placed over first vacuum bagging film
130 and bridge 120. Id. Second sealed chamber 163 is defined by second
vacuum bagging film 160 and first vacuum bagging film 130. Id. First and
second sealed chambers 140, 163 communicate with vacuum source 151 via
vacuum lines 154 and 158, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 34, 38, 43.
During resin infusion, first and second sealed chambers 140, 163, are
subjected to a vacuum. Id. ¶ 52. Atmospheric pressure acts on composite
preform 10 outside of region 16. Id. ¶ 55. Because the presence of bridge
120 and cavity 122, region 16 of the preform is only subject to the partial
vacuum pressure present in the second sealed chamber 163. Id. Region 16,
therefore, is less compacted and more permeable to resin than the rest of
preform 10. Id.
Claim 10 is representative of the ’903 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix.
10. A resin infusion system for resin infusing a composite
preform including a region, said system comprising:
a tool having an upper tool surface supporting said composite
preform;
a layer of permeable flow media covering said composite
preform;
a first vacuum bagging film covering said layer of permeable
flow media to define a sealed first chamber between said first
vacuum bagging film and said tool surface;
a second vacuum bagging film covering said first vacuum
bagging film to define a sealed second chamber between said
first and second vacuum bagging films, an exterior of said
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
4
second vacuum bagging film being exposed to exterior
pressure;
a bridge structure located in said second chamber, said bridge
structure including a roof spanning said region of said
composite preform and at least one wall depending from a
periphery of said roof, said at least one wall defining an edge of
said bridge structure disposed on said first vacuum bagging
film and supported by a portion of said composite preform
outside of said region, said bridge structure having an underside
defining a recess forming a cavity above said first vacuum
bagging film;
a resin supply communicating with said first chamber on an
upstream side of said composite preform;
a vacuum source communicating with said first chamber on a
downstream side of said composite preform; and
a vacuum source communicating with said second chamber,
including with said cavity.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (emphasis added).
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 10–14 and 17–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yamada,2 Hou,3 and Walsh.4 Final
Act. 2.

2 JP 2005-047131 A, published February 24, 2005. We rely upon thea
machine translation that is of record.
3 US 2005/0253309 A1, published November 17, 2005.
4 US 6,586,054 B2, issued July 1, 2003.
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
5
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §based bar 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yamada, Hou, Walsh, and Lang.5
Final Act. 7.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 10–14 and 17–21 over the combination of
Yamada, Hou, and Walsh
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection based upon the
limitations recited in claim 10. See Appeal Br. 7–12. We, therefore, select
claim 10 as representative of the claims subject to this rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We shall limit our discussion to claim 10, and
dependent claims 11–14 and 17–21 will stand or fall with that independent
claim.
Appellant presents three arguments for reversal of the rejection of
claim 10. See Appeal Br. 7–12. We address each of these arguments
separately.
1. Does the combination of Yamada, Hou, and Walsh describe or
suggest each element of claim 10?
Appellant argues that the combination, Walsh does not describe or
suggest each limitation in claim 10. Appeal Br. 7–11.
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner found that “Yamada, as modified
by Hou, does not teach that the at least one wall that defines an edge of the
bridge structure is disposed on the first vacuum bagging film and supported
by portion of the composite preform outside of the region.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further found that Walsh describes this claim limitation. Id. at 4–6.

5 US 6,406,659 B1, issued June 18, 2002.
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
6
Appellant argues that The Examiner’s findings regarding Walsh’s
content are erroneous. Appeal Br. 7–10. In particular, Appellant argues that
the Examiner fails to explicitly identify where the prior art
teaches or discloses a bridge structure having at least one wall
that defines an edge disposed on said first vacuum bagging film
that is supported by a portion of said composite preform side of
said region, as recited in independent claim 10.
Id. at 7–8.
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner found that Walsh describes a
bridge structure comprising a least a pair of walls depending from opposite
sides of the periphery of the roof to an edge of the bridge structure located
on the first vacuum bagging film. Final Act. 5 (citing Walsh Fig. 1a). The
Examiner further found that
prior to application of vacuum to the primary and secondary
vacuum bags, resin channeling means 13 will be supported by
preform 5, thereby meeting the requirements of the apparatus
claim. . . . Furthermore, Walsh explicitly teaches that, after
resin infusion is completed, secondary vacuum line 15 is the
activated while primary vacuum line 23 remains active. In this
configuration, resin channeling means [13] will be supported by
primary vacuum bag 3 and preform 5.
Advisory Action 3 (August 13, 2019).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings are based on pure
speculation. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, reversal is mandated
because “at no point do the drawings or written specification of Walsh
disclose or suggest that the resin channeling means 13 is supported by the
preform 5, the Examiner’s contentions notwithstanding.” Id. at 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
We have reviewed Walsh’s description and determine that it describes
a system in which a bridge structure is supported by a portion of the
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
7
composite preform and defines a recess forming a cavity above the first
vacuum bagging film. For ease of reference, we reproduce Walsh’s Figure
1a below.
Figure 1a is a schematic front view of Walsh’s
apparatus prior to activation of the secondary
vacuum line. Walsh 5:58–61.
As described in Walsh’s Specification, Figure 1 is a basic
representation of Walsh’s apparatus. Walsh 6:54–55. In Walsh’s system,
preform 5 is placed upon tool surface 7. Id. Figs. 1a, 1b. Primary vacuum
bag 3 covers preform 5 to create a sealed chamber around preform 5. Id.
6:60–66. Vacuum may be applied to this sealed chamber through primary
vacuum line 23. Id. Fig. 1a. Resin channeling means 13 is placed on top of
preform 5, with primary vacuum bag 3 located therebetween. Id. 7:33–44,
Figures 1a, 1b. Secondary vacuum bag 20 is then placed over resin
channeling means 13, primary vacuum bag 3, and resin preform 5 to define a
pocket 17 between the primary and secondary vacuum bags. Id. Pocket 17
may be evacuated by means of the secondary vacuum line 15, which is
controlled by valve 16. Id. 8:40–57.
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
8
Appellant’s primary argument is that Walsh does not specifically say
that resin channeling means 13—which the Examiner finds correspond to
the claimed bridge structure—are supported by preform 5 and that Figures
1a and 1b show a space between resin channeling means 13 and primary
vacuum bag 3. See Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–3. This argument is not
convincing because “all of the relevant teachings of the cited references
must be considered in determining what they fairly teach to one having
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mercier, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165 (CCPA 1975).
In this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
that Figures 1a and 1b are not literal representations of Walsh’s apparatus in
use. As noted above, the specification describes these figures both as basic
representations and as schematic views. See Walsh 5:50–61, 6:54–55.
Appellant does not identify any basis or reason for believing that the spaces
shown in these Figures are literally present when the apparatus is in use.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner did not err in finding, see Answer 10,
that the spaces shown in Walsh’s Figures are there to more clearly delineate
the parts from one another.
2. Did the Examiner identify an adequate reason to modify
Yamada and Hou with Walsh in the manner proposed in the
rejection?
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not identified a valid rationale
to combine Yamada and Hou with Walsh. Appeal Br. 10–11. In particular,
Appellant argues that Yamada describes a molding apparatus in which the
first and second vacuum bags are compressed onto the composite preform
during resin injection. Id. at 10 (citing Yamada Abstract, ¶¶ 7, 16, Fig. 1).
Appellant further argues that Walsh describes methods and apparatus and to
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
9
vacuum bag is expanded away from the preform to control resin infusion. Id.
at 10–11 (citing Walsh 7:38–44).
This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, as the
Examiner notes, Hou’s process includes a step of expanding the first vacuum
bagging away from the composite and into contact with the inner surface of
the bridge structure, which is similar to the process described by Walsh.
Answer 11 (citing Hou ¶ 32). Second, Yamada and Hou use a resin
distribution medium between the preform and the first vacuum bag. As
Walsh notes, the process requires additional labor to remove the resin
distribution medium, which then must be disposed of as waste material.
Walsh 2:31–43. Walsh’s process, however, a police the use of a resin
distribution medium, thereby simplify manufacturing and reducing the
amount of waste generated. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine Walsh with Yamada and Hou to obtain
Walsh’s advantages.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner did not err in finding that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamada and
Hou in the manner proposed in the rejection.
3. Does Walsh teach away from a combination with Yamada?
Appellant argues that Walsh teaches away from any combination with
Yamada. Appeal Br. 11–12.
This argument is not persuasive.
As Appellant notes, Walsh criticizes the use of a distribution medium
positioned between the preform and the first vacuum bag. See Walsh 2:31–
43. Walsh, however, proposes the solution to these problems. Id. 2:56–3:4.
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
10
Walsh’s advantages, therefore, provide an additional reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Walsh with Yamada and Hou.
Thus, we determine that Walsh does not teach away from a
combination with Yamada in the manner proposed in the rejection.
4. Summary
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
10. Thus, we also affirm the rejection of dependent claims 11–14 and 17–21.
B. Rejection of claim 15 over the combination of Yamada, Hou, Walsh,
and Lang
While Appellant asks for reversal of the rejection of this claim,
Appellant does not present any specific arguments for reversal of this
rejection. See Appeal Br. 7–12. We, therefore, assume that Appellant is
relying upon the alleged patentability of independent claim 10, from which
claim 15 depends.
As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 10. Thus,
we also affirm the rejection of claim 15.
C. Request for rejoinder of claims 1–9
Appellant’s brief concludes with a request for rejoinder and allowance
of claims 1–9. Appeal Br. 13.
We cannot consider this request because it is outside our jurisdiction.
Our authority is defined by statute and is limited to the review of
adverse decisions by examiners which at least indirectly relate to matters
involving the rejection of claims. In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1404,
(CCPA 1971); see also 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (defining the PTAB’s duties); 35
U.S.C. § 134 (granting applicant the right to appeal once any of the claims
have been twice rejected). Rejections of claims involve examination for
Appeal 2020-005301
Application 15/591,903
11
compliance with the statutory provisions of Title 35, United States Code, as
set forth in §§ 100, 101, 102, 103, and 112. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716,
721 (CCPA 1980). Decisions an examiner makes during examination of a
discretionary, procedural, or nonsubstantive nature not directly connected
with the merits of issues involving rejections are reviewable by petition
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 to the Director, not by appeal. In re Berger, 279
F.3d 975, 984‒85 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–14, 17–21 103 Yamada, Hou, Walsh 10–14, 17–21
15 103 Yamada, Hou, Walsh, Lang 15
Overall Outcome 10–15, 17–21
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