The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 6, 2020

14989763 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2020)

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. 14/989,763 01/06/2016 Douglas Dean Maben 15-2158-US-NP (BOE.351) 7202 120792 7590 08/06/2020 Kolisch Hartwell, P.C. Boeing Customer Number 520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2020 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): docketing@khpatent.com patentadmin@boeing.com veronica@khpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS DEAN MABEN Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–13, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to “manufacture of composite material duct segments using thermoplastic materials reinforced with an internal woven sheath of reinforcing fibers.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Spec. 1:4–6. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce claim 1 below and add emphasis to certain key recitations: 1. A method of manufacturing a duct segment, comprising: wrapping a mandrel with a first thermoplastic film, where the mandrel is configured to define an inner mold line for a desired duct segment; forming a reinforcing sheath from a woven material, where the woven material is prepared by weaving a plurality of reinforcing fibers as both a warp and a weft of the woven material; enveloping the wrapped mandrel with the reinforcing sheath for the desired duct segment; wrapping the enveloped mandrel with a second thermoplastic film to form a multilayer duct segment precursor; enclosing the mandrel and multilayer duct segment precursor within an outer mold configured to define an outer mold line for the duct segment; and heating the enclosed multilayer duct segment precursor at a temperature and for a time sufficient to fuse the layers of the multilayer duct segment precursor; and cooling the resulting duct segment. Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.). 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 19, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated May 10, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Gillette US 2,340,956 Feb. 8, 1944 Lind et al. (“Lind”) US 4,445,951 May 1, 1984 Peacock et al. (“Peacock”) US 4,891,179 Jan. 2, 1990 Goode Muroi et al. (“Muroi”) Kruse et al. (“Kruse”) Lind et al. (“UK ’586”) US 5,503,432 US 5,633,074 US 2005/0258575 A1 UK 1,485,586 Apr. 2, 1996 May 27, 1997 Nov. 24, 2005 Jan. 16, 1975 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind. Ans. 4.3 B. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Peacock. Id. at 8. C. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of 3 The Examiner inadvertently referenced Muroi in this rejection. Ans. 4, n. 1. Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 4 Lind and Gillette. Id. at 10. D. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Goode or Kruse. Id. at 11. E. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Muroi. Id. at 12. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Rejection A, obviousness over UK ’586 and Lind. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind. Ans. 4. Appellant argues claims 1, 6, and 9 separately. We address each of those claims below. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), all other claims subject to this rejection stand or fall with claim 1. With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that UK ’586 teaches most recitations of claim 1’s method. Ans. 4–5 (citing UK ’586). The Examiner finds that UK ’586 does not teach a woven material having reinforcing Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 5 filaments as both warp and weft. Id. at 5. The Examiner, however, finds that Lind teaches use of woven cloths between thermoplastic films. Id. at 5–6 (citing Lind). The Examiner quotes Lind where it teaches that its woven cloths are made of “filaments of thermoplastic fiber.” Id. at 5 (quoting Lind 4:16–21). Examiner thus finds that Lind teaches reinforcing filaments in both the warp and the weft (i.e., the longitudinal and latitudinal directions) of the woven cloth. Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use the woven material of Lind to make the composite duct of UK ’586 because this was a known arrangement for multidirectional reinforcing material. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that neither reference teaches preparation of woven material reinforcing fibers as both warp and weft. Appeal Br. 29. We disagree. Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s finding that woven material necessarily has warp material (for example, longitudinal yarns) and weft material (for example, transverse yarns). See, e.g., Ans. 14– 15. Because Lind teaches use of woven cloth material made of thermoplastic fiber filaments (Ans. 5, 14–15; Lind 4:16–21), a person of skill in the art would understand that Lind’s woven cloth is therefore woven of thermoplastic fiber filaments in the warp and weft directions. Appellant also argues that the references fail to disclose reinforcing fibers to form a sheath configured to envelop a wrapped mandrel. Appeal Br. 31–32. Appellant emphasizes that the wrapped mandrel of UK ’586 is used with a fiber winding apparatus whereas Lind does not use a mandrel. Id. This argument is unpersuasive because it does not squarely address the Examiner’s proposed combination. The Examiner determines that, in view of the teachings of both references, a person of skill in the art would have Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 6 used the woven cloth of Lind as a close fitting wrap around the mandrel of UK ’586. Ans. 6–7. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Appellant argues that there would be no reason to combine the teachings of UK ’586 and Lind to reach the recitations of claim 1 and that there would have been no expectation of success in making such a combination. Appeal Br. 32–35. Appellant emphasizes, for example, that UK ’586 and Lind share a common inventor (David J. Lind) and that the Lind reference identifies problems with the UK ’586 method. Id. at 32–33. The preponderance of the evidence, however, supports the Examiner’s obviousness position. Appellant is correct that Lind refers to problems with the UK ’586 method. Lind 1:66–2:5. Lind, however, explains that it is an object of the Lind invention to avoid these problems. Id. at 2:43–47. In particular, Lind teaches that its cross-stitching with reinforcing filaments (i.e., the woven cloth layer) avoids distortion. Id. at 2:55–3:7; 4:16–21. Lind, therefore, rather than teaching away from Appellant’s invention, suggests improving UK ’586 by use of woven cloths. These teachings would have presented a person of skill in the art with reason to combine the references’ teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. See Ans. 16–18. Claim 6 recites, for example, “a reinforcing sheath that substantially conforms to a shape of the wrapped mandrel.” Appeal Br. 49 (Claims App.). Appellant again argues that there is no motivation to use a woven sheath. Appeal Br. 35. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. Appellant also argues that woven materials are not compatible with a Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 7 fiber winding machine. Appeal Br. 35. The Examiner, however, finds that UK ’586 already teaches wrapping plastic film around a mandrel so that a person of skill in the art would not have difficulty similarly wrapping woven cloth around the mandrel as Lind suggests. Ans. 18. Appellant does not persuasively dispute this finding. Claim 9 recites, “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising enveloping at least a portion of the multilayer duct segment precursor with one or more additional reinforcing fabric layers, and wrapping each additional reinforcing fabric layer with an additional thermoplastic film prior to enclosing the mandrel and multilayer duct segment precursor within the outer mold.” Appeal Br. 49 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that Lind does not teach identifying regions of a duct segment precursor and applying additional layers of woven reinforcing fabric and film to those portions. Appeal Br. 36. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it only addresses Lind rather than the combined teachings of the references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Moreover, the Examiner finds that UK ’586 teaches that multiple layers of reinforcement would be suitable for its operation (Ans. 19), and Appellant does not persuasively dispute this finding. Because Appellant does not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Rejection B, obviousness over UK ’586, Lind, and Peacock. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Peacock. Ans. 8. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further defines the mandrel of claim 1. Appeal Br. 49 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Peacock uses a mandrel and provides a rationale for combining Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 8 Peacock’s teachings with the teachings of UK ’586 and Lind. Ans. 8–9. To the extent Appellant refers to arguments made with respect to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 37), the arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. Appellant also argues that Peacock teaches a different method than UK ’586 or the recited claim. This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner provides extensive findings and determinations as to why a person of skill in the art would have looked to Peacock’s teachings to improve the UK ’586 process, and Appellant does not persuasively refute this reasoning. Ans. 20–21. We sustain this rejection. Rejection C, obviousness over UK ’586, Lind, and Gillette. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Gillette. Ans. 10. Claim 8 recites, for example, “wrapping the mandrel with an elongate strip of the first thermoplastic film in an overlapping spiral.” Appeal Br. 49 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Gillette teaches such wrapping and provides a rationale for combining the references’ teachings. Ans. 10–11. Appellant argues that Gillette’s strips are not thermoplastic film. Ans. 39–40. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant argues the references individually. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Gillette teaching a winding technique and does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining Gillette’s winding technique with the teachings of UK ’586 and Lind. Ans. 21–23. We sustain this rejection. Rejection D, obviousness over UK ’586, Lind, and Goode or Kruse. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Goode or Kruse. Ans. 11. Claims 11 and Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 9 12 recite paraphenylene terephthalamide fibers and polyether ether ketone polymer thermoplastic film respectively. Appeal Br. 50 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Goode and Kruse teach these materials and provides a reason to combine the references’ teachings. Ans. 11–12. Appellant argues that Goode and Kruse teach different methods than the claims. Appeal Br. 40–41. This argument is again unpersuasive because it argues the references individually. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Also, Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s stated reasons why a person of skill would have combined the references’ teachings. Ans. 23–24. We sustain this rejection. Rejection E, obviousness over UK ’586, Lind, and Muroi. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over UK ’586 in view of Lind and Muroi. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that Muroi teaches a seamless sleeve and identifies a reason to combine the references’ teachings. Appeal Br. 13–14. The Examiner only relies on Muroi to address seamless sleeve recitations. Ans. 14. To the extent Appellant again raises arguments we address above (Appeal Br. 42–45), the arguments remain unpersuasive. Appellant also argues that Muroi has a different manufacturing method and that Muroi teaches away because it “specifically teaches that having reinforcing fibers running in only one direction is advantageous.” Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does not identify how Muroi discourages Appellant’s solution or discourages combining the references’ teachings in the context of the UK ’586 process. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 10 these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the ’198 application.”). Appellant further argues that Muroi’s sleeve is not seamless as claims 5 and 25 require. Appeal Br. 45. Appellant, however, presents no evidence to support this argument. Id. In contrast, the Examiner cites various portions of Muroi, including Figure 4, to support the finding that Muroi teaches a seamless sleeve. Ans. 13. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the evidence the Examiner cites insufficiently supports the Examiner’s findings as to Muroi’s teachings or why the findings are erroneous. We, thus, sustain this rejection. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24 103 UK ’586, Lind 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24 7 103 UK ’586, Lind, Peacock 7 8 103 UK ’586, Lind, Gillette 8 11, 12 103 UK ’586, Lind, Gillette, Goode, Kruse 11, 12 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24, 25 103 UK ’586, Lind, Muroi 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 24, 25 Overall Outcome 1, 5–13, 24, 25 Appeal 2019-005613 Application 14/989,763 11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED