14194420 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

CCDI COMPOSITES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 2020

14194420 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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. 14/194,420 02/28/2014 Rob Sjostedt 1375-005.101 4232 22145 7590 04/01/2020 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP 16755 VON KARMAN AVENUE SUITE 275 IRVINE, CA 92606 EXAMINER LAN, YAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2020 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): KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROB SJOSTEDT Appeal 2019-002081 Application 14/194,420 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, 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, 3–7, and 21–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CCDI COMPOSITES INC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002081 Application 14/194,420 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 1. A mandrel made of a composite material comprising: fiber bands forming [a] plurality of filament wound layers that include a first filament wound layer and a second filament wound layer defining an elongated body with a hollow core; each of the first filament wound layer and the second filament wound layer comprising a first strand of the fiber bands comprising a standard roving strand substantially without strand loops; each of the first filament wound layer and the second filament wound layer comprising a second strand of the fiber bands comprising a blown roving strand having strand loops surrounding a core bridging between the plurality of filament wound layers of the elongated body to enhance interlaminar shear strength; and resin for binding the first and second filament wound layers; wherein the standard roving strand of the first filament wound layer and the blown roving strand of the second filament wound layer are intermingled to form an intertwined bundle; and wherein the blown roving strand of the first filament wound layer are intermingled with the blown roving strand of the second filament wound layer. Appeal 2019-002081 Application 14/194,420 3 THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nish et al. (Nish) US 7,735,549 Bl June 15, 2010 Yomoda et al. (Yomoda) US 2013/0072335 Al Mar. 21, 2013 THE REJECTION Claims 1, 3–7 and 21–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nish in view of Yomoda. OPINION We refer to the Examiner’s rejection as set forth on pages 8–12 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 30, 2017. Therein, the Examiner recognizes that Nish does not teach its fiber bands comprise a first strand and a second strand “in the specific manner as recited in claim 1”.2 Non- Final Act. 9. The Examiner relies upon Yomoda for teaching this aspect of the claimed subject matter. Non-Final Act. 9–10. We agree with Appellant that the disclosure of the singular layer of loops of the filament thread of Yomoda (see Figure 1 of Yomoda reproduced below) does not provide any suggestion for the claimed feature of “wherein the blown roving strand of the first filament wound 2 There are many claimed aspects regarding how the first strand and second strand form the fiber bands. We can focus on the aspect of claim 1 “wherein the blown roving strand of the first filament wound layer are intermingled with the blown roving strand of the second filament wound layer”. Appeal 2019-002081 Application 14/194,420 4 layer are intermingled with the blown roving strand of the second filament wound layer.” Appeal Br. 11. As such, we also agree with Appellant’s statement that without such evidence, the rejection is based upon hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 11. In view of the above, we reverse the rejection. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed 1, 3–7, 21– 23 103 Nish, Yomoda 1, 3–7, 21– 23 REVERSED