Ex Parte Akiyama et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 23, 201914117497 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/117,497 11/13/2013 513 7590 05/28/2019 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1025 Connecticut A venue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hiromichi Akiyama 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. 2013-1802A 8923 EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2019 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROMICHI AKIYAMA and MASA YUKI KANEMASU Appeal2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 Technology Center 1700 Before MARK NAGUMO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner'sfinal decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 7 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 13, 2013 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed July 3, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Nov. 17, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 17, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 The subject matter on appeal relates to resin transfer molding (RTM), which is defined in the Specification as "a molding method in which a thermosetting resin is injected in a dry fiber preform disposed in a cavity formed inside a pair of molding dies." Spec. ,r 2. Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative ( disputed matter italicized): 1. An RTM method comprising: an impregnating step comprising disposing a dry fiber preform in a molding die comprising two or more separate die members, raising a temperature of the two or more separate die members to a predetermined temperature, and impregnating a thermosetting resin into the dry fiber preform disposed in the molding dies; a first temperature raising step comprising, after completion of the impregnating step, raising a temperature of any one of the die members constituting the molding die to form a temperature gradient from one side in the thickness direction of the dry fiber preform toward the other side, the temperature gradient having a temperature difference equal to or more than a predetermined value; and a second temperature raising step comprising raising a temperature of a die member different from the die member whose temperature is raised in the first temperature raising step, wherein a cavity having a gap of 10 mm or more is formed inside of the molding die. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x). OPINION The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Diethelm3 alone and together with additional prior art references, 3 U.S. Patent No. 4,784,814, issued Nov. 15, 1988. 2 Appeal 2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 including David. 4 Final Act. 2-7. Appellants argue the rejections of claim 1 over Diethelm, and over Diethelm in view of David. Appeal Br. 3-10. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), and in view of the lack of argument directed to the other rejections, dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 will stand or fall together with independent claim 1, from which they depend. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the cited art because (1) Diethelm is directed to a pressure reaction injection molding process for mass production rather than the claimed resin transfer method (RTM), and (2) Diethelm forms a temperature gradient before resin is injected into the molding die. App. Br. 7-8 (citing Diethelm 7:10-12). According to Appellants, Diethelm does not form a temperature gradient from one side of the thickness direction of the dry preform toward the other side and also does not disclose that the mold temperature is raised after completion of impregnating resin as required by claim 1. Id. at 8. Appellants additionally assert that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have applied David's teachings to inject resin into a mold cavity containing a fiber preform and thereafter successively de-activate cooling elements while successively activating heating elements to cause progressive polymerization of resin from one end of the mold cavity to another because "David is totally opposite the express teachings of Diethelm." Id. at 9. Appellants contend that not only does Diethelm differ from David in that the Diethelm maintains a temperature difference in the mold spaces of its process, but the molding tool of Diethelm is configured such that the resin is injected from an orifice contained in the upper half of 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,885,504, issued Mar. 23, 1999. 3 Appeal 2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 the mold while David's molding apparatus is configured such that resin is injected and a temperature gradient is formed in an in-plane direction from the tip end side toward the opposite end side. Id. at 9--10. The Examiner responds that the process of Diethelm is a resin transfer molding (RTM) process as that term is defined in the Specification because a fibrous preform is impregnated with a thermosetting resin injected under pressure into the cavity of a preheated mold followed by hardening (curing). Ans. 4--5 (citing Spec. 27-29; Diethelm 4:27, 4:59---60, 4:68, 7:33, 11:30- 35). The Examiner determines that the claimed process is an obvious rearrangement of steps over the Diethelm process because Diethelm provides the same temperature gradient before the injection that Appellants provide after the injection and Appellants have not established any different result is achieved by this rearrangement. Id. at 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds no evidence that Diethelm's resin actually begins curing before the mold is completely filled or reaches a level that would prevent complete filling of the mold. Id. The Examiner further responds that David was applied as a second or alternative rejection and that the reference shows that the particular rearrangement of steps was known in the prior art at the time of the invention. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that the only difference that would be expected with David's rearrangement is that establishing the temperature differential after resin injection may take longer. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants maintain that the pressure reaction injection molding (RIM) process of Diethelm is for the manufacture simple- shaped products using reinforced resin gels that can be removed from a mold in 3 0-90 seconds and differs from an R TM process as claimed because 4 Appeal 2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 reinforced resin is not impregnated or cured in such a short time. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the term "RTM process" as used in claim 1 because it is consistent with the definition provided in the Specification. Spec. 2 ("R TM is a molding method in which a thermosetting resin is injected in a dry fiber preform disposed in a cavity formed inside a pair of molding dies, and the thermosetting resin is cured by heating."). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans. 5---6) that Diethelm meets the attributes of an R TM process identified in the Specification, including that Diethelm impregnates a fibrous preform in a mold with substantially the same resins as disclosed in the Specification. In addition, Appellants do not direct us to any recitation in the claim or disclosure in the Specification that would further limit the definition of R TM and the claim to a particular cure time or product shape, which Appellants contend distinguish an R TM process from an RIM process for molding a thermosetting resin (Reply Br. 2-3). See Catalina Marketing Int'!, Inc. v. Coo/savings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[A] preamble is not limiting 'where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention."') (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even if it would not have been obvious to alter the steps ofDiethelm's molding process to complete the impregnating step before the first temperature raising step as required by claim 1 based on the disclosure of Diethelm alone, we find that the Examiner's obviousness conclusion based 5 Appeal 2018-002781 Application 14/117 ,497 on the combination of Diethelm with David's teachings is supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal record. The Examiner correctly finds that David teaches that the sequence of first injecting and thereafter progressively heating is advantageous in a molding process in order to avoid shrink cavities in the finished part. Final Act. 5---6; David, Abstract, 2: 10-32). Based on David's disclosure that progressive heating after resin is injected into a mold cavity containing a fiber preform is desirable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Diethelm's process steps accordingly. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. In sum, Appellants have failed to show harmful error by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Diethelm alone or in view of the teachings of David. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation