Ex Parte Kaps et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2013

11909733 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/909,733 10/02/2007 Robert Kaps 03100366AA 8368 30743 7590 05/29/2013 WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. 11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD SUITE 340 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER ABRAHAM, AMJAD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT KAPS, JAN SCHOPPMEIER, LARS HERBECK, DANIEL SCHMIDT, and AXEL HERRMANN ____________ Appeal 2012-004985 Application 11/909,733 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 10-18. Claims 19 and 20 have been indicated by the Examiner as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. Ans. 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. An oral hearing was held on May 7, 2013. Appeal 2012-004985 Application 11/909,733 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 10 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 10. A method for producing a fiber composite component comprising first and second partial elements bordering one another, the first partial element having a fiber structure and a first matrix system embedding the first fiber structure, the second partial element having a second fiber structure and a second matrix system embedding the second fiber structure, said first matrix system and said second matrix system having different curing mechanisms, comprising the steps of: consolidating the first matrix system within the first fiber structure of the first partial element leaving a transitional region of the first fiber structure adjacent to the second fiber structure of the second partial element without the first matrix system; allowing the second matrix system of the second fiber structure to penetrate in its liquid state into the transitional region of the first partial element; and then consolidating the second matrix system within the second fiber structure of the second partial element and in the transitional region of the first partial element. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Esper 4,268,468 May 19, 1981 Flonc 5,080,851 Jan. 14, 1992 Don 5,643,390 Jul. 1, 1997 Hale 6,017,484 Jan. 25, 2000 Fink 6,048,488 Apr. 11, 2000 Ton-That 2004/0067705 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Tsotsis 2004/0219855 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Lorenz 2004/0265406 A1 Dec. 30, 2004 Appeal 2012-004985 Application 11/909,733 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§102(b) as being anticipated by Esper. 2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper alone or in view of Fink or Lorenz. 3. Claims 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper in view of Flonc, and further in view of Ton-That. 4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper in view of Flonc, and further in view of Ton-That in further view of Hale. 5. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper in view of Flonc, further in view of Ton-That, and further in view of Tsotsis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2004/0219855 A1 ). 6. Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper in view of Don. 7. Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper, in view of Don, or in view of Fink, or Lorenz. 8. Claims 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper, in view of Don, in view of Flonc, and further in view of Ton-That. Appeal 2012-004985 Application 11/909,733 4 9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper in view of Don in view of Flonc in further view of Ton-That in further view of Hale. 10. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Esper, in view of Don, in view of Flonc, further in view of Ton-That, and further in view of Tsotsis. Rejection 1 ISSUE: Did the Examiner err in determining that Esper anticipates the claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of claim 10 pertaining to: consolidating the first matrix system within the first fiber structure of the first partial element leaving a transitional region of the first fiber structure adjacent to the second fiber structure of the second partial element without the first matrix system? We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE. ANALYSIS It is the Examinerâ€™s position that Esperâ€™s formation of two preforms is equivalent to the claimed first and second partial elements. Ans. 20. App App therm elem therm 21. that an in alon how trans there cons first pow eal 2012-0 lication 11 Esperâ€™s The Exa oplastic p ent. The E osetting r The Exa allows pen terlocking g with the Howeve the teachi itional reg in. That i olidation o partial ele der) of Fig 04985 /909,733 Figure 1 is miner find owder fill xaminer f esin, equa miner find etration of transition figures, of r, on this r ngs of Esp ion of a fi s, the Exam f the first ment (elem ure 2 of E reproduce s that Esp ed within) inds that E tes with A s that Esp thermopl al region. Esper, in ecord, the er suggest rst fiber str iner does matrix sys ent 12 (m sper) prov 5 d below. erâ€™s fiber m equates w sperâ€™s fib ppellantsâ€™ erâ€™s fiber m astic and t The Exam this regard Examiner Appellant ucture wit not adequ tem within at) of Figu ides for a t at 12 hav ith Appel er mat (10 second pa at 12 has hermosetti iner refer . Ans. 21 does not a sâ€™ claim re hout a ma ately expl the first f re 1, and ransitiona ing a matr lantsâ€™ first ), soaked w rtial eleme a transitio ng materia s to col. 4, . dequately quiremen trix embed ain how iber struct 12â€™ (therm l region of ix (12â€™ partial ith nt. Ans. nal region l to form ll. 27-58, explain t of a ded ure of the oplastic a first Appeal 2012-004985 Application 11/909,733 6 fiber structure without a first matrix system. This aspect of Appellantsâ€™ claimed subject matter allows the presence of fibers in the transitional region of the first partial element, as explained by Appellants on page 1 of the Reply Brief. In this context, we thus agree with Appellantsâ€™ position. In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. Rejections 2-10 As pointed out by Appellants on page 2 of the Reply Brief, the other references do not cure the deficiencies of Esper as discussed above. We therefore also reverse Rejections 2-10. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION Each rejection is reversed. REVERSED kmm