Ex Parte Lonsdorfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

13628919 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
13/628,919 09/27/2012 Georg Lonsdorfer AIRBUS 3.9-500 CON 5365
530 7590 03/06/2017
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
BELL, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
eOfficeAction @ ldlkm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG LONSDORFER,
ADRIAN WACHENDORF, REMO HINZ,
NIELS DESCHAUER, and ADAM ANDRA
Appeal 2016-000721
Application 13/628,919
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 We refer to the Specification filed September 27, 2012 (“Spec.”); the Final
Action mailed November 24, 2014 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed
April 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 13,
2015 (“Ans.”). Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2016-000721
Application 13/628,919
The claims are directed to a device for the production of multi-arched
structural components from a fiber composite. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed language emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device for the production of structural components
from a fiber composite material, said structural components
being three-dimensionally arched over a large surface,
comprising:
a jig having a convex mounting surface comprising a
plurality of receiving channels for the insertion of construction
components and configured to be loaded with auxiliary
materials,
wherein the loaded jig is configured to interact with a
laminating bonding device having a corresponding shape for
forming the structural component under pressure,
wherein the mounting surface further comprises a
plurality of individually elastically deformable mounting shell
parts arranged adjacent to each other along at least one
longitudinally extending pitch line and attached to a plurality
of elastically deformable supporting frame elements extending
on the interior of the shell at a right angle to the pitch line, and
a plurality of actuators configured to deform, by way of
the supporting frame elements, the mounting surface between
an extended position (A) and at least one retracted position (B)
to move the jig from the laminating bonding device relative to
the receiving channels without undercuts.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-000721
Application 13/628,919
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Collora et al.
(“Collora”)
Dublinski et al.
(“Dublinski”)
Chapman et al.
(“Chapman”)
Baggette et al.
(“Baggette”)
US 4,527,783
US 5,217,669
US 2006/0108058 Al
US 2008/0078876 Al
July 9, 1985
June 8, 1993
May 25, 2006
Apr. 3, 2008
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(1) claims 1—4 and 6—9 over Dublinski in view of Chapman and further in
view of Collora; and (2) claim 5 over Dublinski, Chapman, and Collora, and
further in view of Baggette. Final Act. 2, 6, 7.
OPINION
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim in the application, and requires
that the mounting surface of the jib comprises, inter alia, “a plurality of
individually elastically deformable mounting shell parts arranged adjacent to
each other along at least one longitudinally extending pitch line.” App. Br.
15 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that “Dublinski teaches an
elastically deformable mounting shell, while Chapman teaches using a
plurality of individual mounting shell parts.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner
acknowledges that Chapman does not teach that individual mounting shell
parts are elastically deformable. Id. The Examiner concludes that one of
3
Appeal 2016-000721
Application 13/628,919
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it
obvious to modify Dublinski’s device
by providing a plurality of individually elastically deformable
mounting shell parts arranged adjacent to each other along at
least one longitudinally extending pitch line for the benefit of
forming a greater circumferential portion of the structural
component in a single molding cycle, thereby reducing the need
for post-molding assembly and bonding of individually molding
components.
Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that neither Dublinski nor Chapman discloses or
suggests a mounting surface comprising a plurality individually elastically
deformable mounting shell parts, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner fails to adequately articulate
what is meant by “forming a greater circumferential portion,” and how the
proposed modification of the “Dublinski semi-rigid tool to include a
plurality of individual parts would result in a ‘greater circumferential
portion.’” Id. at 9. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s statements are
conclusory and lack articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Id. at
9-10.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. A plurality of elastically
deformable mounting shell parts are required by claim 1, but are not
sufficiently disclosed by Dublinski, Chapman, or the combination of
references. The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on these references for the reasons articulated by
Appellants.
4
Appeal 2016-000721
Application 13/628,919
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious. Claims 2—
9 depend from claim 12; we, therefore, also reverse the rejection of these
claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5