Ex Parte Montgomery et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2016

11656626 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111656,626 01/23/2007
63759 7590 04/25/2016
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua M. Montgomery
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.
06-0759-US-NP 2396
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, CAMIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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 JOSHUA M. MONTGOMERY, SALVATORE L. LIGUORE, and
TUANQ. CA01
Appeal2014-007212
Application 11/656,626
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3-11, 13-23, 25,
and 49 as unpatentable over Atkins (US 2007/0071957 Al published Mar.
29, 2007) in view of Hunter (US 6,764,754 Bl issued July 20, 2004). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Boeing Company is identified as the Real Party in Interest.
Supplemental Appeal Brief filed 3 December 2013 (Sup. App. Br.) 2.
Appeal2014-007212
Application 11/656,626
\Ve REVERSE.
Appellants claim a damped composite laminate comprising first and
second layers (12, 14) having disposed therebetween a third layer (16) of
damping material comprising a first viscoelastic material having a first glass
transition temperature and a reinforcement medium of fiber material
comprising a second viscoelastic material having a second glass transition
temperature greater than the first glass transition temperature (independent
claim 1, Figs. 1-3; see also remaining independent claims 17 and 49).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A damped composite laminate, comprising:
a first and a second layer comprising a carbon fiber and a
resin reinforced plastic material;
a third layer disposed between the first and second layers,
the third layer including damping material comprising a first
viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature
and a reinforcement medium comprising a second viscoelastic
material having a second glass transition temperature greater
than the first glass transition temperature, the reinforcement
medium comprising fiber material, the materials in the third
layer different than the resin in the first and second layers; and,
a first barrier layer disposed between and contacting the
first layer and the third layer, and a second barrier layer
disposed between and contacting the second layer and the third
layer, said first and second barrier layers being formed of a
fabric of at least .0005 inch thick, the first barrier layer and the
second barrier layer configured to substantially prevent
intermixing of material comprising said first and second layers
with material comprising said third layer.
Sup. App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2014-007212
Application 11/656,626
In the rejection, the Examiner finds "Atkins does not specifically
disclose that the third layer [of damping material] comprises a first
viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature and a
reinforcement medium comprising a second viscoelastic material having a
second glass transition temperature greater than the first glass transition
temperature" (Final Action 4). The Examiner finds that Hunter discloses a
damping lamina having reinforcement fibers (id. at 4--5 (citing Fig. 2, col. 6,
11. 30-45)) and concludes that it would have been obvious "to have
reinforcement fibers in the third layer of the present claims (corresponding
to the second layer of the Atkins reference) in order to have a composite that
has high strength and improved damping properties [as taught by Hunter]"
(id. at 5).
Appellants argue that the Hunter disclosure cited by the Examiner
does not discuss glass transition temperatures and accordingly that Hunter
does not appear to teach the claimed subject matter directed to a third layer
of damping material comprising a first viscoelastic material having a first
glass transition temperature and a reinforcement medium comprising a
second viscoelastic material having a second glass transition temperature
greater than the first glass transition temperature (Sup. App. Br. 16; see also
Reply Br. 7-8).
Significantly, although the Examiner's Answer finds that Hunter
discloses the resin in the damping lamina is present in a viscoelastic state
and the resin in the structural lamina is present in the glassy state (Ans. 4)
(citing Hunter's claim 1 ), it does not specifically address Appellants'
argument regarding the claimed first and second glass transition temperature
limitations for the materials in the specified third layer (see Ans. 5-7).
3
Appeal2014-007212
Application 11/656,626
For this reason and because the rejection itself also does not address
these limitations, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness in rejecting the appealed claims. We do not sustain, therefore,
the§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-23, 25, and 49 as unpatentable over
Atkins in view of Hunter.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4