Ex Parte McCowin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12363749 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/363,749 0113112009
63759 7590 04/20/2016
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter D. McCowin
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.
08-0853-US-NP 2639
EXAMINER
AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER D. McCOWIN
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-25 and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a system and a method for
fabricating a composite structure. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated July 2, 2013 ("App. Br.").
The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A system for fabricating a composite structure, comprising:
a plurality of independently operable vehicles, wherein each
vehicle of the plurality of independently operable vehicles
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
respectively perform differing tape application tasks, said different
tape application tasks comprising the each vehicle applying differently
configured courses of tape only within respectively different areas of a
tool surface, the each vehicle exclusively associated with one or more
of said areas; and,
a control system for controlling the independent operation of
the vehicles, wherein the control system is configured to execute an
algorithm to optimize an efficiency of operation of the plurality of
independently operable vehicles, and wherein the algorithm is further
configured to optimize based on a part definition defining the
composite structure and further based on a plurality of operational
aspects of the plurality of independently operable vehicles.
App. Br. 21 (emphasis added).
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1-3, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lauder et al.; 1
(2) claims 1-3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lauder in view of Tang et al.; 2
(3) claims 1--4, 9, 10, 14--16, 19-21, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lauder in view of Tang and Jackson et al.; 3
(4) claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lauder
in view of Tang, Jackson, and Weiss et al.; 4 and
1 US 2006/0260751 Al, published November 23, 2006.
2 EP 1 804 146 Al, published July 4, 2007.
3 US 5,954,917, issued September 21, 1999.
4 US 4,351,688, issued September 28, 1982.
2
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
(5) claims 7, 8, 11-13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lauder in view of Tang, Jackson, and Cincinnati
Milacron. 5
B. DISCUSSION
Lauder discloses a device for placing plies on a surface. Lauder i-f 1. Lauder
Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a machine assisted laminator (MAL) 10
comprising two robotic vehicles 12 which position ply material 14 on form 16 to
generate item 18. The robotic vehicles 12 are guided by guidance system 20.
Lauder i-f 20.
Lauder Fig. 1 depicts an automated tape lamination machine
according to an embodiment of the invention.
The Examiner finds:
Lauder et al clearly suggested that each vehicle dispenser 12 was
independently operable and that each performed a different tape
5 Cincinnati Milacron, Into the Future ... With Better Ways to Automate the
Manufacture of Composite Parts. The copy of the Cincinnati Milacron brochure of
record in the instant Application is not dated. However, there is no dispute on this
record that the date of the brochure is 1998. See Examiner's Answer dated August
12, 2013 ("Ans."), at 9; App. Br. 19.
3
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
application task (for example one could start in the middle of the form
and one vehicle would go to one edge from the middle laying the tape
courses while the other would have started in the middle and gone to
the opposite edge laying courses of tape material). The different tape
application tasks compris[ e] each vehicle applying differently
configured courses of tape [28] only within respective different areas
of the tool surface( in this instance one applicator applied tape courses
[28] only on the upper half of the form and one applicator applied
courses [28] only in the lower half of the form[)] ....
Ans. 3--4.
The Appellant argues:
Lauder does not anticipate claim 1 because Lauder does not
disclose "each vehicle exclusively associated with one or more of said
areas." While the Office Action characterizes Lauder as showing
control of tape laying vehicles within specific areas, Lauder does not
actually disclose that the vehicles are exclusively associated with one
or more of said areas, as in claim 1.
App. Br. 11.
The Appellant recognizes that Lauder "Figure 1 shows robotic vehicles 12
moving in opposite directions and away from each other." App. Br. 12. However,
referring to paragraph 21 of Lauder, the Appellant argues that both robotic vehicles
12 can start in the center, whereby different robotic machines would not operate
exclusively in different sectors. App. Br. 12.
The Appellant also argues that:
[P]aragraph 21 [of] Lauder goes on to state that the robots may
cooperatively weave two or more layers of the ply material. This
disclosure provides that in many cases the robots do not operate in
different sectors. Rather, what Lauder suggests is that each robot may
roam all over the surface in order to apply the material.
App. Br. 12-13.
The Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
system recited in claim 1 comprises, inter alia:
4
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
a plurality of independently operable vehicles, wherein each
vehicle ... respectively perform[ s] differing tape application tasks,
said different tape application tasks comprising the each vehicle
applying differently configured courses of tape only within
respectively different areas of a tool surface, the each vehicle
exclusively associated with one or more of said areas ....
App. Br. 21 (emphasis added). We interpret claim 1 as reciting that each vehicle
applies different courses of tape only within respectively different areas of a tool
surface, whereby each vehicle is exclusively6 associated with at least one of those
areas. 7
Lauder discloses:
In an embodiment, the MAL 10 includes two or more robotic
vehicles 12 configured to co-operatively apply the ply material 14 to
the form 16. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, each robotic vehicle
12 initiates placement of the ply material 14 at or near a center portion
of the form 16 and then co-operatively work outward and to different
portions of the form 16. Thus, it is an advantage of embodiments of
the invention that material lay down rates are increased over ATLMs
[automated tape lamination machines] that have only one
conventional end effector. 8 In another example, the robotic vehicles
12 are configured to co-operatively weave two or more layers of the
ply material 14 together upon the form 16.
Lauder i-f 21 (emphasis added).
6 The term "exclusive" is defined as "single, sole." Merriam-Webster definition of
"exclusive," http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive (last visited
March 30, 2016).
7 In the system claims on appeal, this limitation merely recites a function of the
vehicles in the claimed system. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is,
not what a device does.").
8 Each robotic vehicle 12 in Lauder's system may comprise an end effector 32.
See, e.g., Lauder Fig. 2 (illustrating end effector 32); Lauder i-f 24 (end effector 32
is positioned by robotic vehicle 12).
5
Appeal2014-000755
Application 12/363,749
Based on the foregoing, we find that Lauder discloses three embodiments:
( 1) each robotic vehicle initiating placement of ply material at a center portion of
the form and then co-operatively working outward to different portions of the
form; (2) each robotic vehicle initiating placement of ply material near a center
portion of the form and then co-operatively working outward to different portions
of the form; and (3) robotic vehicles co-operatively weaving two or more layers of
ply material together on the form. In at least embodiment (2), we find that each
vehicle in Lauder applies different courses of tape only within respectively
different areas of the form surface, whereby each vehicle is exclusively associated
with at least one of those areas as recited in claim 1. In other words, by co-
operatively working outward to different portions of the form, each vehicle is
exclusively associated with a portion of the form surface. For this reason, the
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of claims 2, 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23. Therefore, the§ 102(b)
rejection of claims 2, 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 23 is also sustained.
As for the§ 103(a) rejections on appeal, the Appellant does not direct us to
any error in the Examiner's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, the
§ 103(a) rejections are also sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6