Ex Parte Campbell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 2017

13744920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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. 13/744,920 01/18/2013 Aindrea McKelvey Campbell 83334653 2580 28395 7590 10/30/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER WILENSKY, MOSHE K 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2017 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): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AINDREA MCKELVEY CAMPBELL, DANIEL QUINN HOUSTON, and AMANDA KAY FREIS1 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 21—24. App. Br. 1. Claims 1—5 have been canceled, and claims 6—20 have been withdrawn. See Amendment dated September 3, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to riveting, clinching or flow drill screwing parts or panels to a composite part formed from a layered resin and a fibrous filler material.” Spec. 12. Method claims 21 and 23 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below: 21. A method of joining two parts, comprising: selecting an integral composite part having a first layer including a resin reinforced with fibers and a second layer of resin without fibers wherein the first layer and second layer form the integral composite part; selecting a second part; inserting the integral composite part and the second part in a tool with the first layer adjacent to the second part and the second layer facing away from the second part; driving a flow drill screw sequentially through the second part, the first layer and the second layer, wherein the flow drill screw penetrates completely through the second layer, and wherein the second layer has a thickness that is sufficient to substantially prevent fibers in the first layer from penetrating through the second layer. REFERENCES Karam US 2005/0266221 A1 Dec. 1,2005 Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), e.g., “joining parts to fiber reinforced composite parts” with flow drill screws is known. Spec. 14; see also Final Act. 3. REJECTION Claims 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Karam and AAPA. 2 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 21—24 together. App. Br. 5—8. We select claim 21 for review with the remaining claims standing of falling therewith.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 1 recites both “an integral composite part” and “a second part.” Appellants do not dispute that Karam discloses an integral composite part.3 Further, Appellants ultimately agree with the Examiner that the recited “second part” corresponds to Karam’s “another structure,” such as “cargo carrying products,” “walls,” or “furniture.” Final Act. 3; App. Br. 6 (both referencing Karam 137); see also Ans. 4; Reply Br. 2. With this understanding, Appellants contend that Karam “fails to disclose and completely teaches away from the claimed sequential steps.”4 App. Br. 6. Appellants submit that this is because, in Karam, “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a flow drill screw would be driven through the laminate structure 10 [i.e., the “composite part”] and then through the furniture, and not the other way around” as claimed. App. Br. 6. In other words, Appellants contend that, in Karam, “a flow drill screw would first enter through . . . the laminate structure 10.” App. Br. 6. 2 Appellants also address dependent claim 22 with respect to the “thickness” limitation. App. Br. 7. We address both claims 21 and 22 in our discussion of this limitation below. 3 Appellants acknowledge, “[w]hile not illustrated,” Karam states, “nonfiber- reinforced sheets may be interspersed within the fiber-reinforced layer.” App. Br. 5; see also Final Act. 2 (both referencing Karam 126). 4 Claim 21 recites, “driving a flow drill screw sequentially through the second part [the furniture], the first layer and the second layer,” i.e., through the furniture first, then through first and second layers of the composite part. 3 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 Karam’s laminate structure/composite part 10 is described as being “[djecorative.” Karam 120. The Examiner explains, “decorative items attached to furniture are frequently screwed from behind.” Ans. 4. The Examiner provides examples of “cabinet knobs” and “drawer handles” that “are attached from inside the drawer, and partially penetrate the handles, so that the nails or screws are not visible from the outside.” Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner determines that “[i]t is standard practice in furniture construction to hide any attachment elements used to install decorative pieces.”5 Ans. 4. Appellants do not dispute such partial penetration of the decorative device from the back, and accordingly, Appellants’ above presumption that one skilled in the art would only attach Karam’s decorative item 10 from the front or from the outside is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellants also discuss Karam’s “layered structure of Figure 1.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that outer decorative layers 20 sandwiching inner reinforcing layers 30 of Karam’s decorative laminated structure 10 “would be adjacent to the furniture, and the decorative layers do not have fibers” therein. Reply Br. 3. Hence, Appellants submit that “there would be no layer with fibers adjacent to the furniture” consistent with claim 21. Reply Br. 3. 5 As per the Examiner, “[t]he screw would be inserted through the wood, penetrate completely through and then partially embed in, but not completely penetrate, the laminate.” Ans. 4. As understood, this partial embedment of the laminate involves passing the screw through at least a “first” (fiber) and “second” (non-fiber) interspersed layer of the laminate/composite part, but not completely through the laminate/composite part itself. 4 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive for at least three reasons. First, Appellants are relying on the embodiment of Karam depicted in Figure 1, yet Appellants acknowledge that the recited interspersed fiber/non-fiber layering comprising reinforcement layer 30 is “not illustrated.” App. Br. 5; see also Karam 126. Thus, any reliance by Appellants on Karam’s Figure 1 is misplaced. Second, claim 21 recites that the first layer be “adjacent” the second part/fumiture. Appellants do not provide a definition of “adjacent” in their Specification; however, we determine that ordinary definitions of the claim term “adjacent” are “not distant”6 and “lying near.”7 With this understanding, Appellants do not explain how a corresponding first (fibrous) layer of Karam’s reinforcement layer 30 would not be “adjacent” the second part/fumiture. Third, Appellants’ argument pre-supposes that a decorative layer 20 would be intermediate the furniture and layers 30 (and hence not “adjacent”). Reply Br. 3. However, Karam does not require a decorative layer 20 on both sides of layer 30 (i.e., also on a side abutting the furniture). Instead, Karam teaches that a backer layer “may be superimposed onto fiber- reinforced layer 30, on the opposite side of first decorative layer 20.” Karam 120. Thus, Appellants’ contention that “there would be no layer with fibers adjacent to the furniture” is not persuasive of Examiner error. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also address the recited thickness of the claimed second non-fibrous layer. App. Br. 7. Claim 21 recites that this thickness “is sufficient to substantially prevent fibers in the first layer from penetrating through the second layer,” while claim 22 recites “the second layer is more 6 See Meriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/adjacent (last visited October 23, 2017). 7 See Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/adjacent?s=t (last visited October 23, 2017). 5 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 than 3 microns thick.” On this point, the Examiner addresses Karam’s teaching that an eight-ply laminate “is approximately 0.060 inches thick” and a twelve-ply laminate “would be approximately 0.090 inches thick.” Karam || 39, 40; see also Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. “Thus, each layer is presumed to be ~0.0075 inches, which is ~190 microns, in thickness.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes, “[s]ince a 3 micron layer is sufficiently thick to achieve the recited goal, the far thicker layer of Karam will also serve the purpose.” Final Act. 4. Appellants contend that Karam’s disclosed thicknesses “are not directed to the thickness of any ‘second layer,’ but rather to the thickness of the entire structure 10.” App. Br. 7. In other words, “no thickness is attributed to these nonfiber-reinforced sheets.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner explains that Karam “teaches that the laminate thickness seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of resin plies. Specifically, an 8 ply laminate is .06 inches thick and a 12 ply laminate is .09 inches thick.” Ans. 5. “Thus, even if [Appellants’] contention is correct, and the other layers contribute some thickness, one of ordinary skill would infer that resin layers are the dominant controlling factor and that each 4 plies adds approximately .03 inches of thickness.”8 Ans. 5. Hence, “[g]iven that the math suggests the plies are 190 microns (far greater than the claimed 3 microns) it would also be completely reasonable to infer that any lessening in thickness (from the other layers)” would still suggest a layer greater than 3 microns in order to achieve the recited goal. Ans. 5—6; see also Final Act. 4. Appellants are 8 “Examiner considers that the two types of resin plies [i.e., fiber/non-fiber,] would likely be of common thickness.” Ans. 6. 6 Appeal 2016-002711 Application 13/744,920 not persuasive of Examiner error on this point because Appellants do not explain how the Examiner’s findings and reasoning are incorrect. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—24 as being obvious over Karam and AAPA. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—24 is 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 7