Ex Parte Blonigen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2017

12836247 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2017)

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.
12/836,247 07/14/2010 Bradley John Blonigen 41224 1811
23589 7590 01/19/2017
Hovey Williams LLP
10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2017 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):
patents @ hovey williams, com
amalik @hovey williams .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY JOHN BLONIGEN and
DANIEL RICHARD McBRADY1
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s maintained final rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for placement of a strip of
material onto a three-dimensional surface having at least two faces and a
radiused edge connecting the two faces. Spec. Abstract. The strip of
material is steered by a lesser amount on the radiused edge than it is on at
least a portion of one of the adjacent two faces connected by the radiused
edge. Claims 1, 10.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for placement of a strip of material onto a
three-dimensional surface having a first face and a second face,
with a first radiused edge connecting the first face with the
second face, the method comprising:
steering the strip of material by a first amount on at least
a portion of the first face;
steering the strip of material by a second amount on the
first radiused edge; and
steering the strip of material by a third amount on at least
a portion of the second face, wherein at least one
of the first and third amounts are greater than the
second amount,
wherein the first, second, and third amounts of steering
are below a defined threshold, wherein the
threshold corresponds with an amount of steering
at which the strip of material stretches or buckles
beyond a set tolerance level.
Replacement Claims Appendix 23, filed June 13, 2014.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a method for placement of a strip
of material onto a three-dimensional surface having a first face, a second
face, and a third face, with a first radiused edge connecting the first face
with the second face and a second radiused edge connecting the second face
with the third face. Claim 10.
2
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1—14 stand rejected over Munaux2 in view of Wyatt;3
II. Claims 7—14 stand rejected over Munaux in view of Wyatt and either
Amaoka4 or Guzman;5
III. Claims 1—14 stand rejected over Munaux in view of Wyatt and Hale;6
and
IV. Claims 7—14 stand rejected over Munaux in view of Wyatt, Hale, and
either Amaoka or Guzman.
DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the Examiner’s decision in light of the arguments
advanced by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, we are of the opinion that
Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that claims 1-14 are rendered obvious by the applied prior art. We add the
following for emphasis.7
2 Munaux et al., US 2010/0252183 Al, published October 7, 2010.
3 Wyatt et al., US 8,165,702 B2, issued April 24, 2012.
4 Amaoka et al., US 6,513,757 Bl, issued February 4, 2003.
5 Guzman et al., US 2008/0290214 Al, published November 27, 2008.
6 Hale et al., US 6,799,081 Bl, issued September 28, 2004.
7 We refer to the Final Office Action (mailed December 30, 2013), the
Appeal Brief (filed May 20, 2014; supplemented June 13, 2014), the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 25, 2014), and the Reply Brief (mailed
September 11, 2014).
3
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
Appellants argue the patentability of the claims on the basis of
independent claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 12-21. Appellants’ central
contentions are that the applied prior art fails to disclose or teach steering a
strip of material by a greater amount on relatively flat first and second
surfaces than on the curved edge and that routine experimentation would not
result in the claimed method.
As set forth by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3), and not
contested by Appellants (see generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.), steering
relates to the deviation from the natural path—the shortest distance between
two points on a surface—such that following a natural path corresponds to
zero steering (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3). The meaning of steering as the degree
of deviation from the natural path is likewise manifest in Figures 7 and 9 and
corresponding description from the Specification where a depicted strip of
material 10 is steered by a first amount 58, a second amount 60, and a third
amount 62. Spec. 12,11. 12-20; 12,1. 28 to 13,1. 2; Figs. 7, 9.
The Examiner relies on Wyatt for its disclosure relating to “steering
away from the natural path, but only by an amount within a defined
tolerance range which prevents wrinkling, i.e., buckling.” Ans. 3 (citing
col. 1,11. 53-55; col. 2,11. 60-64; col. 3,11. 40-45; col. 5,1. 67-col. 6,1. 10;
col. 7,1. 46-col. 8,1. 26). As noted by the Examiner, Wyatt explains that
wrinkling occurs where there is excessive steering for the materials on the
particular surface to which they are applied and discloses use of
mathematical modeling to identify where there is a greater tendency for
wrinkling to occur, i.e., locations where a lesser degree of steering is
possible while avoiding wrinkling. Ans. 3^1 (citing Wyatt col. 6,11. 4-8;
col. 7,11. 46-61; col. 8,11. 21-28). The Examiner finds, accordingly, that
4
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
Wyatt teaches a method where lesser amounts of steering are used on
surfaces with extreme curvature, such as a radiused edge, than are used on
flat surfaces. Ans. 4. The Examiner further determines de facto that the
skilled artisan placing strips of material on a three-dimensional structure
would have, through no more than routine experimentation, used less
steering on radiused edges than on flat surfaces in order to avoid wrinkling
while taking advantage, to the degree it was possible, of the benefit of
steering. Ans. 4-5. As explained by the Examiner, “[o]nly the expected
result of avoiding wrinkling by avoiding excessive steering in a given
location has been achieved” (Ans. 10-11) and “it is reasonably clear that
WYATT also prevents wrinkling by selecting the configuration of tape
paths” (Ans. 12, citing Wyatt col. 7,11. 57-61).
Hale—additionally relied on by the Examiner in a parallel set of
rejections to those grounded solely on Munaux and Wyatt—likewise teaches
advantages of steering and that wrinkling should be avoided. Ans. 8 (citing
Hale col. 2,11. 11-33, 52-67, col. 3,11. 19-30).
Amaoka and Guzman, in the alternative, are relied on by the
Examiner in the rejections of claims 7-14 for particular structural
characteristics of the three-dimensional surface. Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue that Wyatt “suggests an entirely different solution
(i.e., reducing strip width).” Appeal Br. 15. While admitting that Wyatt
teaches an iterative design process to determine how much forced deviation,
i.e., steering, is to be used, and the calculation of stress and strain values
(Appeal Br. 16, citing Wyatt col. 7,11. 11-50), Appellants contend the
purpose of steering in Wyatt is not to reduce wrinkling, but rather to reduce
gaps, even at the expense of increased strain (Appeal Br. 16, citing Wyatt
5
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
col. 10,1. 59-col. 11,1. 7). Appellants maintain Wyatt merely teaches
reducing the width of tape to avoid wrinkling, not adjustment of the path of
the strips of material. Appeal Br. 15-17 (citing Wyatt col. 6,11. 8-10; col. 7,
11. 46-67; col. 8,11. 1-28, 46-54; col. 9,11. 43-55). Appellants argue that
because the solution in Wyatt differs, “[rjoutine experimentation would not
result in the solution of pending claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellants further argue that “[mjerely recognizing a problem (i.e.,
wrinkling is undesirable) does not automatically make the solution obvious”
where the solution is explained as “greater steering (anticipatory steering) on
the flat faces in preparation for the radiused edge, which allows for less
steering the radiused edge.” Appeal Br. 18. According to Appellants,
“reducing steering over a radiused edge does not inherently require a greater
amount of steering on the flat surfaces” and may in fact increase gaps in
contradiction to the purpose of Wyatt. Appeal Br. 19.
On this record, we are unpersuaded of reversible error. Appellants’
arguments are grounded on their contentions that there is not any particular
teaching to reduce the amount of steering over the radiused edge than in one
or more of the flat surfaces. Such a precise, particular teaching is not
required. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (an
obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t
is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.”.
6
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
Having ignored the reasonable inferences relied on by the Examiner,
including that Wyatt reasonably teaches that benefits of steering can be
obtained while avoiding wrinkling by using less steering on radiused edges
than on flat surfaces, Appellants’ arguments focusing on a different solution
to avoid wrinkling—using narrower strips-fail to persuade us that one
skilled in the art, armed with knowledge of the cited prior art, at the time of
the invention would not have been led to the claimed method.
Appellants’ further arguments that recognition of wrinkling as a
problem arising from excessive steering does not render the invention
obvious and that changing the steering might result in greater gaps in
contradiction to the purpose in Wyatt also ignore that “[a] person of ordinary
skill is ... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S.
at 421) and fail to take into account the “inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” in overcoming any
potential difficulties (id. at 418).
As to Appellants’ argument that the skilled artisan would not arrive at
the claimed invention through routine experimentation because the solution
proffered by Wyatt is to reduce the material width is likewise unpersuasive
where it fails to address that the skilled artisan—armed with the knowledge
that excessive steering results in wrinkling—would have within their ambit
to reduce the amount of steering in regions that were wrinkled and would,
thus, have arrived at the claimed invention through no more than routine
experimentation. We find it of no import that a different solution, even a
preferred solution, to the problem is also taught.
Appellants’ further arguments as to claim 1, including those directed
to Hale (Appeal Br. 19-20), are unpersuasive because they also fail to
7
Appeal 2015-005209
Application 12/836,247
address the rejection grounded on Wyatt and what its teaching would
suggest to the skilled artisan as set forth by the Examiner, particularly where
it is not disputed that Hale teaches wrinkles are formed by excessive steering
and should be avoided (Ans. 8).
Appellants effectively rely on the arguments as to claim 1, discussed
above, as to the rejection of claim 10. Appeal Br. 20-22. While mentioning
additional references Amaoka and Guzman, Appellants’ brief argument as to
these references focuses on their failure to teach steering strips of material
(Appeal Br. 21), however, the Examiner’s rejections grounded on
combinations of references including these rely on Wyatt for its teachings
relating to steering (Ans. 6, 9) and Appellants add nothing further to the
arguments as to Wyatt (Appeal Br. 21-22).
Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the
preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 1—7 and 9—14 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of these claims under § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are AFFIRMED.
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
8