Xie, Ming et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

13687117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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.
13/687,117 11/28/2012 Ming Xie 256718-2 4923
69742 7590 10/22/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
c/o Trego, Hines & Ladenheim, PLLC
10224 Hickorywood Hill Avenue
Suite 202
Huntersville, NC 28078
EXAMINER
KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 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):
USPTO@DOCKETTRAK.COM
oc.prosecution@ge.com
patents@thlip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MING XIE,
MARK ERNEST VERMILYEA,
BOWDEN KIRKPATRICK,
MITCHELL HAROLD BOYER,
ELLIOTT KELLER SCHULTE, and
BENJAMIN FERRELL

Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “generally relates to methods for
fabricating composite structures. More specifically, this invention relates to
a method of fabricating a composite article to have an integral composite
secondary structure, for example, an integral flange of a composite casing
for a turbomachine.” Spec. ¶ 2. Method claim 1 is the sole independent
claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. A method of forming a composite article to have a
primary composite structure and an integral secondary
composite structure that extends out of a plane defined by a
continuous reinforcement material within the primary
composite structure, the method comprising:
laying-up first plies consisting of individual non-woven
fibers or fiber tows via an automated fiber placement machine
to construct the primary composite structure, the first plies
containing the continuous reinforcement material and extending
from a first zone that will define the primary composite
structure into a second zone that will define the secondary
composite structure;
during laying-up of the first plies, interleaving additional
plies consisting of individual nonwoven fibers or fiber tows via
an automated fiber placement machine with the first plies

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117

3
within the second zone but not the first zone so that the second
zone contains both the first and additional plies, the additional
plies originating within a build-up zone between the first and
second zones and extending there from into the second zone,
the first and additional plies both terminating in a manner that
ends of the first and additional plies define an end surface; and
then
deforming the build-up zone and the interleaved first and
additional plies therein at the end surface to orient the second
zone and form the secondary composite structure into a flange
that extends out of the plane defined by the continuous
reinforcement material of the first plies.
EVIDENCE
Iszczyszyn et al. US 5,939,007 Aug. 17, 1999
Darrow et al. US 2009/0176066 A1 July 9, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Iszczyszyn.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iszczyszyn and Darrow.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–11 and 13
as anticipated by Iszczyszyn
Independent claim 1 (and hence dependent claims 2–11 and 13)
recites “first and additional plies both terminating in a manner that ends of
the first and additional plies define an end surface.” We have been
instructed that any interpretation of claim 1 must be consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, and thus we look to Appellant’s Specification for
understanding and guidance. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117

4
1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In the matter before us,
Appellant’s Specification states, “the ends of the plies 18 and 20 forming the
secondary composite structure will define an end surface.” Spec. ¶ 22.
Consequently, we understand the recited “end surface” to at least include the
ends of both first plies 18 and additional plies 20. See Spec. ¶¶ 9, 11; Fig. 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner correlated the recited “first plies” to
Iszczyszyn’s laminates 60, the recited “additional plies” to Iszczyszyn’s
laminates 70, and the recited “end surface” to Iszczyszyn’s subregion 52.
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8. To assist, the Examiner also provided an
annotation of Figure 5 of Iszczyszyn. See Final Act. 8, Ans. 10. Appellant
contends, “the additional plies [70] do not extend into region 52 where the
first plies [60] extend; thus, the first and additional plies (60, 70) do not both
terminate in a manner that ends of the first and additional plies define an end
surface.” Br. 14.
There is merit to Appellant’s contention. Iszczyszyn clearly teaches
that the end portions of laminates 70 “extend into and gradually drop-off in
the transition subregion 50,” and hence do not reach subregion 52 (i.e., the
corresponding “end surface”). Iszczyszyn 9:42–45; see also Fig. 5 (where
subregion 52 illustrates a complete lack of any ends of laminates 70). The
Examiner seeks to provide some clarification stating “the ends of the
additional plies (70) terminate in the region of the end surface.” Ans. 8.
However, being “in the region of the end surface” as depicted in Figure 5 of
Iszczyszyn is not the same as having ends that form and define the “end
surface” itself, as this limitation is interpreted.
In effect, according to Iszczyszyn, it is the lack of laminates 70 that
define subregion 52. See Iszczyszyn 9:30–33 (“Full convergence of the
Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117

5
crossply laminates 60 occurs in the closure subregion 52, wherein the end
portions 62ea, 62eb form a constant thickness of crossplies therein.”). This
reliance by the Examiner on the absence of laminates 70 in subregion 52 is
problematic because our reviewing court has instructed us that “it is not
reasonable to read the claims more broadly than the description in the
specification, thereby broadening the claims to read on the prior art over
which the patentee asserts improvement.” TF3 Limited v. Tre Milano, 894
F.3d 1366, 1372–3 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, a claim interpretation
that requires the presence of ply ends 70 in the “end surface” (see above) is
not taught by a disclosure lacking such presence.2
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Iszczyszyn anticipates
the claimed method. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11
and 13 as being anticipated by Iszczyszyn.
The rejection of claim 12
as unpatentable over Iszczyszyn and Darrow
Claim 12 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites “wherein
the composite article is a fan casing of a gas turbine engine.” The Examiner
relies on Darrow for such additional teaching. See Final Act. 6. To be clear,
the Examiner does not rely on Darrow for curing the defect of Iszczyszyn

2 In addition to the above, the Examiner’s reliance on Iszczyszyn’s
subregion 52 as correlating to the recited “end surface” (Final Act. 3, Ans. 8)
is not entirely understood. It may be that the Examiner is referencing the
outer exposed surface of aft conic region 47 (Iszczyszyn 7:17) as depicted in
Figure 5. Or, perhaps, the Examiner is referencing the staggered end
portions 62ea of plies 60 depicted in Figure 3 of Iszczyszyn. Regardless, the
Examiner has clearly identified subregion 52 as correlating to the recited
“end surface,” and yet plies 70 do not extend into this subregion 52.
Appeal 2019-002123
Application 13/687,117

6
noted above. Accordingly, we likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12 as being unpatentable over Iszczyszyn and Darrow.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11,13 102(b) Iszczyszyn 1–11, 13
12 103(a) Iszczyszyn,
Darrow
12
Overall
Outcome
1–13

REVERSED