Ex Parte KUNTZ

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13283830 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/283,830 10/28/2011
23911 7590 08/02/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Julian KUNTZ
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
l l 4248.63933US 9977
EXAMINER
MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIAN KUNTZ 1
Appeal2017-010648
Application 13/283,830
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and BRIAN
D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 10, and 13-23. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Premium AEROTEC
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010648
Application 13/283,830
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A semi-finished textile for producing a fiber composite
component part comprising:
a textile structure; and
a fixation structure;
wherein the textile structure has a first multitude of
reinforcement-fiber bundles of fibers,
wherein bundles displacement sections are arranged between
adjacent reinforcement-fiber bundles that are displaceable against
each other,
wherein the fixation structure fixates the reinforcement-fiber
bundles, with a fixation pattern so that the reinforcement-fiber bundles
are at least partially fixated and the displacement sections remain at
least partially free,
wherein the fixation pattern includes predetermined fixation
points on each of the reinforcement-fiber bundles,
wherein the predetermined fixation points on each of the
reinforcement-fiber bundles is a central zone of each of the
reinforcement-fiber bundles
wherein the fixation structure includes a multitude of meltable
binder yams fixated to each of the reinforcement-fiber bundles only in
the central zone of each of the reinforcement-fiber bundles, and
wherein each meltable binder yam of the multitude of meltable
binder yams includes a binidng [ sic, binding] material.
2
Appeal2017-010648
Application 13/283,830
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Shinoda2 WO 2007 /099825 Al
(hereafter "Shinoda '825")
Philipps et al. US 5,866,253
(hereafter "Philips")
Davies et al. US 2002/0123287 Al
(hereafter "Davies")
THE REJECTIONS
Sep. 5,2002
Feb.2, 1999
Sep. 5,2002
1. Claim 1-5, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Shinoda3 in view of Philipps.
2. Claims 1-14 and 16-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a), as being unpatentable over Davies.
3. Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Davies.
4. Claims 1-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Davies in view of Philipps.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
2 US publication 2009/068428 Al (Mar. 12, 2009) is the English language
equivalent.
3 It is noted that when utilizing Shinoda '825, the Examiner refers to
paragraph numbers cited in US publication 2009/068428.
3
Appeal2017-010648
Application 13/283,830
on this record supports Appellant's position for substantially the reasons
provided by Appellant in the record, with the following emphasis.
Rejection 1
As pointed out by Appellant, claim 1 requires, inter alia, that each
meltable binder yam of the multitude of meltable binder yams includes a
binding material, and these yams fixate to the fiber bundles. Appeal Br. 6-
7. Reply Br. 2. In particular, claim 1 recites: "wherein each meltable binder
yam of the multitude of meltable binder yams includes a binding material."
We agree with Appellants that this recitation requires that the binding
material be part of the yam.
On page 16 of the Answer, the Examiner states that the claim
language is not so limited and that Shinoda's auxiliary yams and adhesive
meets the claim language.
We agree with Appellant that the claim language requires that each
meltable binder yam of the multitude of meltable binder yams includes a
binding material, and these yams fixate to the fiber bundles for the reasons
stated by Appellant in the record. Because the Examiner's interpretation of
the claim language is flawed in this regard, the Examiner has not adequately
explained how Shinoda or Philipps teaches or renders obvious "wherein
each meltable yam ... includes a binding material." We thus reverse
Rejection 1.
4
Appeal2017-010648
Application 13/283,830
Rejections 2, 3, and 4
In a similar manner, we also reverse Rejection 2 based upon the
flawed claim interpretation discussed above. Because of the flaw, the
rejection does not adequately address an element of the claim. Appeal Br.
11-12. As stated above, the claim language requires that the meltable binder
yams themselves fixate to the fiber bundles. As Appellant explains, Davies'
fibers 408 themselves are not fixated to reinforcing fibers bundles 404.
Appeal Br. 11. As Appellant argues, staple fibers 408 do not engage
reinforcing fibers 404 at all. Id. Again, the Examiner has not adequately
established that the cited references teach or render obvious "wherein each
meltable yam ... includes a binding material" as recited by claim 1.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 2. Rejections 3 and 4 are
likewise reversed for the same reasons.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5