Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

13855705 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
13/855,705 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