Ex Parte Malia et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2019

13960009 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/960,009 08/06/2013
107783 7590 01/29/2019
Reising Ethington P.C.
755 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1850
Troy, MI 48084
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mike Malia
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.
8198.3005.002 [FS-10086] 1383
EXAMINER
MORGAN, EMILY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
j ones@reising.com
USPTOmail@reising.com
USPTOmail@gmx.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKE MALIA, BRIAN KAPLUN, and
DOMINICK CONSAL VI
Appeal2018-005589
Application 13/960,009 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8-11, 24, 25, and 27-31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed "to live hinge
structures that provide hinged movement between components via material
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Lockheed Martin
Corporation." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005589
Application 13/960,009
flexure." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 24 is the sole independent claim on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 24 as representative of the appealed claims.
24. A hinged component, comprising:
a first portion of material;
a second portion of material;
a first layer of elastomer;
a live hinge attaching the first and second portions of
material together at a hinge region, the live hinge comprising a
layer of tensile fabric at least partially infiltrated by at least part
of the first layer of elastomer;
at least part of the first layer of elastomer being interposed
between the tensile fabric and material of the first and second
portions;
at least one of the portions of material including a
structural composite comprising reinforcing fibers in a polymer
matrix; and
the first layer of elastomer being co-cured with at least one
of the portions of material.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 2
I. Claims 8, 9, 24, 25, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable based on Apgar et al. (US 2012/0176736 Al, pub.
July 12, 2012) ("Apgar") and Schaube et al.
(US 2012/0034833 Al, pub. Feb. 9, 2012) ("Schaube"); and
2 Although in the Final Office Action the Examiner rejects claim 24 as
indefinite (Final Action 3--4), the Examiner withdraws this rejection based
on Appellants' subsequent claim amendments ( Advisory Action 1 ).
2
Appeal2018-005589
Application 13/960,009
II. Claims 10, 11, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
based on Apgar, Schaube, and Casteras (US 2011/0177279 Al,
pub. July 21, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, independent claim 24, from which claims 8, 9, 25,
and 28-31 depend, recites the following:
A hinged component, comprising:
a first portion of material;
a second portion of material;
a first layer of elastomer;
a live hinge attaching the first and second portions of
material together at a hinge region, the live hinge comprising a
layer of tensile fabric at least partially infiltrated by at least part
of the first layer of elastomer;
at least part of the first layer of elastomer being interposed
between the tensile fabric and material of the first and second
portions;
at least one of the portions of material including a
structural composite comprising reinforcing fibers in a polymer
matrix; and
the first layer of elastomer being co-cured with at least one
of the portions of material.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 24) (emphases added). "In other words,
according to the invention of claim [24], it's the elastomer layer in the live
hinge that both infiltrates the tensile fabric and that provides a (co-cured)
connection between the live hinge and one or both portions of material that
are hinged together by the live hinge." Id. at 10 ( emphases added).
3
Appeal2018-005589
Application 13/960,009
According to Appellants, the Examiner's rejection is in error because
"[ n ]either Apgar nor Schaube either discloses or suggests co-cured elements
at all-much less a live hinge element (the first layer of elastomer) co-cured
with at least one of two portions of material that are attached together by the
live hinge." Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added); see also id. 9--11; Reply Br. 3-
4. Appellants persuade us. In claim 24's rejection, the Examiner finds that
"Apgar discloses ... first portion of material 602; ... second portion of
material 603; ... tensile fabric 610 ... ; and ... first layer of elastomer 605
being co[-] cured with tensile fabric 61 O" rather than with first or second
material portions 602, 603. Final Action 5.
In response to Appellants' argument in the Appeal Brief, including
specific arguments regarding Schaube, the Examiner indicates that Apgar is
relied upon to disclose the claimed co-cured connection. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that it "is known [from] Apgar" to "attach[] the first layer of
elastomer with the tensile fabric" consistent with claim 24 's "'co-curing'
step." Answer 3 (emphasis added). But, as discussed above, claim 24
recites co-curing the first layer of elastomer with at least one of the first and
second material portions-i.e., "a co-cured connection ... to or between
portions of material that would be hinged together." Appeal Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 4--5.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner does not support
adequately that either Apgar or Schaube discloses a first layer of elastomer
co-cured with at least one of the first and second material portions, as recited
in independent claim 24. Therefore, we do not sustain claim 24's rejection.
Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8,
4
Appeal2018-005589
Application 13/960,009
9, 25, and 28-31 that depend from claim 24, which the Examiner rejects
based on the same rationale as claim 24.
Rei ection II
The Examiner does not demonstrate that Casteras remedies the
deficiency in claim 24's rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, and 27 that depend from
claim 24.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 8-11,
24, 25, and 27-31.
REVERSED
5