Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201713855705 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/855,705 04/02/2013 Michael Patterson Johnson 12-1676-US-NP 4695 77028 7590 NovaTech IP Law 1001 Ave. Pico, Suite C500 San Clemente, CA 92673 EXAMINER GICZY, ALEXANDER V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2018 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): soneill@novatechip.com patentadmin @ boeing. com karin @ loyola.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL PATTERSON JOHNSON, JAMES F. ACKERMANN, CHRISTOPHER C. EASTLAND, DYRK L. DANIELS, and STEVEN J. BURPO1 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—20. See Appeal Br. 12—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 .The Boeing Company is the applicant as provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and also is identified as the real party in interest in the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to continuously curved spars for composite airfoils that eliminate “kinked spars,” which exhibit abrupt changes in angle and direction along a spar where parts are spliced together and increase manufacturing cost and complexity. Spec. 1,4, 35, Fig. 4A. Claims 1, 11, and 15 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An airfoil comprising: one or more fuel containment regions disposed in the airfoil; and, one or more continuously curved spars extending from a root end of the airfoil toward a tip end of the airfoil, at least one of the continuously curved spars comprising: a unitary configuration; one or more continuous curves along the continuously curved spar; and, either having a portion forming a structural wall of at least one of the one or more fuel containment regions, or, being internal to the one or more fuel containment regions. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS Claims 1—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka (EP 1 288 124 Al, pub. Mar. 5, 2003) and Horibe (US 2013/0236686 Al, pub. Sept. 12, 2013). Claims 15 and 17—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka, Manley (US 8,061,655 Bl, iss. Nov. 22, 2011), and Horibe. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka, Manley, Horibe, and Amaoka (US 2002/0195524 Al, pub. Dec. 26, 2002). 2 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 ANALYSIS Claims 1—14 Rejected Over Tanaka and Horibe Appellants argue claims 1—8 and 10-13 as a group. Appeal Br. 12— 29. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2—8 and 10-13 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Tanaka teaches an airfoil as recited in claim 1 including what appears to be continuous, curved rear spar 22 in Figure 1, but does not state explicitly that rear spar 22 is continuously curved or has one or more continuous curves. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that Horibe teaches a structural warp knit sheet for spars 20 that are curved lengthwise. Id. at 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to replace at least the rear spar of Tanaka, which is suggested to be curved in a lengthwise direction, with a spar having a continuous curve taught by Horibe for better aerodynamics, structural integrity, and conformance to wing curvature. Id. Appellants argue that Tanaka does not disclose a continuously curved spar in the Specification or in Figure 1. Appeal Br. 16—17. Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no evidence showing that a skilled artisan would interpret Figure 1 of Tanaka to show a curved spar. Reply Br. 12. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Appellants disclose that a “continuously curved spar” “includes a spar having one or more substantially straight portions connected by one or more continuously curved portions, i.e., continuous curves, and also includes a spar having one continuous curve with a continuous, non-varying and constant radius.” Spec. 149 (emphasis added). A “continuous curve” “means a curve having no kinks, discontinuities, breaks, or angles.” Id. 3 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 The Examiner’s finding that Tanaka “apparently illustrates a continuous rear spar 22 based on the curving line in Figure 1” (Final Act. 5) is supported by a preponderance of evidence. We appreciate that drawings may not be relied upon to illustrate precise proportions or particular sizes of elements when the specification is silent on the particular issue (Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Gp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); however, drawings may be relied upon for what they show, even when a feature is unintended or unexplained in the specification (In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d911, 914 (CCPA 1979)). In this case, the Examiner illustrates how rear spar 22 in Figure 1 is curved and deviates from a straight line (dashed line annotation). Ans. 6. Tanaka discloses Figure 1 as a perspective view of a wing box structure of a composite wing. Tanaka 119. Nonetheless, rear spar 22 is illustrated with substantially straight portions connected by a continuously curved portion, which satisfies Appellants’ definition of a “continuously curved spar.” The Examiner also relies on the express teachings of Horibe to make a wing box spar in a curved configuration. This finding is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Horibe discloses a curved laminate composite with excellent mechanical properties that is “used for beams for supporting structural bodies, particularly spars (wing beams),” “well suited for spars and stringers, particularly spar caps,” and “advantageously used for spars that form part of main wings and tail units of aircraft.” Horibe H 1, 30, 87, Figs. 4, 6. The curved laminate may be used for spar caps when a strict requirement for stiffness exists (Horibe 1 87; Appeal Br. 17); however, the laminates also are used to make curved spars for wing beams. The laminates are continuously curved with a radius of curvature. Horibe 27, 85. 4 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 Horibe’s teachings provide rational underpinnings for the Examiner’s modification of Tanaka to include such curved spars. Final Act. 5. Horibe addresses a similar problem that Appellants disclose of removing kinks from airfoil spars by making spars with continuous curves. Spec. H 1, 4, 35, Fig. 4A. Horibe addresses the problem of “creases” that occur when carbon fiber prepregs and fabrics are formed into curved wings and spars and impair the mechanical properties. Horibe H 3, 4. Horibe discloses carbon fiber warp knit sheets that are formed into curved spars and stringers without creases and with excellent mechanical properties. Id. 122. Horibe discloses that increased demand exists for curved wing structures that provide greater functionality, improved aerodynamics, and fuel efficiency. Id. 13. The Examiner reasons correctly that modifying Tanaka with such a continuously curved spar would provide a spar that conforms to the wing’s curvature and improves aerodynamics and structural integrity. Final Act. 5. The particular motivation and avowed purpose of the inventor (Appeal Br. 18) does not control whether the claims are obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). The non-patent literature cited by the Examiner evidences the understanding in the art of the use of curved spars for curved wings (Final Act. 5—6), and corresponds to Horibe’s teachings. SeeAriosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We also agree with the Examiner that Tanaka teaches unitary spars in Figure 1 and the written description, which describes how front spar 22 and rear spar 23 are fabricated as units and then arranged on lower skin molding prepreg with an adhesive to form a wing box. Tanaka Tflf 31—41; Ans. 13. Figure 1 of Tanaka illustrates unitary spars 22, 23, in much the same way Appellants disclose a unitary 88 spar 26. Spec. H 41, 54, Figs. 5A, 6A. 5 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 The Examiner’s finding that Tanaka teaches a continuous spar that forms part of a structural wall of a fuel containment region is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 5; Ans. 14. Tanaka discloses that the wing box of Figure 1 is used as a fuel tank and thus a sealing process must be applied to it to fill clearances in the components of the wing box, which includes spar 22. Tanaka 1 5. Appellants’ arguments do not address these findings and thus do not persuade us of Examiner error. Appeal Br. 23—24. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—8 and 10-13.2 Claims 9 and 14 Claims 9 and 14 recite a continuously curved spar with “a radius having a size in a range of 4000 inches to 5000 inches.” Appeal Br. 33, 34 (Claims App’x.). The Examiner cites Horibe’s teaching of a “minimum radius of curvature” “within the 0.1 to 10 m range.” Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner reasons that Horibe teaches a minimum range, but no maximum range, and thus discloses a larger range that encompasses the claimed range, which is 101.6 meters to 127 meters. Ans. 18. We agree. Horibe’s warp knit sheets can be formed into curves of a “minimum” radius range without creases and thus can be used for wing spars. Horibe 22, 27, 29, 87; see Reply Br. 16—17; Appeal Br. 25—26. This advantage does not undermine the Examiner’s reasoning that Horibe sheets also can be used to form curved wing spars of a much larger radius as claimed. 2 Appellants also argue that dependent claims 2—14 are patentable for the reasons argued for dependent claims 1 and 11 from which they depend and the additional features they recite. Appeal Br. 26—29. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth for claim 1 and also fail to set forth separate argument for the patentability of these claims. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 6 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 If Horibe’s improved laminates can be formed into curved spars of smaller diameter without creasing, it is reasonable to conclude that curved spars can be made in much larger diameters without creasing if desired. A preferred arrangement does not teach away from disclosure of less favored arrangements also disclosed in the prior art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”). Horibe teaches laminates for curved wing structures such as spars to meet the strong demand for upsizing and weight reduction in civilian aircraft applications that include main wings made of composite materials that improve fuel efficiency and also expand the use of carbon fibers in spars and stringers to meet demands for weight reduction. See Horibe 12. A skilled artisan would understand this teaching to encompass curved wing spars with larger dimensions and radii that conform to aircraft main wings. Tanaka discloses such wing boxes and unitary spars 22 as discussed above. Tanaka 12. Appellants do not disclose unexpected results or criticality for the claimed radius. See Spec. ]Hf 49, 78. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 14. Claims 15 and 17—20 Rejected Over Tanaka, Manley, and Horibe Independent claim 15 recites a method of manufacturing an aircraft that includes forming a continuously curved spar with features of claim 1. The Examiner again relies on Tanaka and Horibe to teach these features, and Manley to teach the bonding of these elements to a fuselage. Final Act. 14— 16. Appellants present the same arguments as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 13— 26. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 17—20. 7 Appeal 2017-001677 Application 13/855,705 Claim 16 Rejected Over Tanaka, Manley, Horibe, and Amaoka Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of claim 16 beyond reciting its features and arguing patentability based on its dependence from independent claim 15. Appeal Br. 29. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation