Ex Parte Bhaatia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

14046023 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/046,023 10/04/2013 Promila P. Bhaatia
54549 7590 03/22/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA13496U;
67097-1355PUS2
CONFIRMATION NO.
4639
EXAMINER
LOWREY, DANIEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PROMILA P. BHAATIA
and JOSEPH PARKOS
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, BRIAND. RANGE,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-10 of Application 14/046,023
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. (June 15, 2016) 2---6. Appellant 1 seeks
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Appellant, United Technologies Corporation, is identified as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to adhesively bonded joints.
Spec. i-f 2. Aircraft components may utilize an adhesive material to hold two
or more subcomponents together. Id. A primer layer (also called a bond
promoter coating) may be applied to at least one of the sub-components to
help form a strong adhesive bond. Id. The present application describes a
primer layer that serves to protect a metallic sub-component from corrosion
and provide a strong bond. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below:
1. An adhesively bonded article comprising:
a metallic substrate having an oxide layer thereon;
a phosphonate and trivalent chromium bond promoter
coating on the oxide layer;
an adhesive material on the phosphonate and trivalent
chromium bond promoter coating; and
a component bonded to the metallic substrate by way of
the adhesive material.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bhatia2 in view ofVenables. 3 Final Act. 2--4.
2 US 7,018,486 B2, issued Mar. 28, 2006.
3 US 4,308,079, issued Dec. 29, 1981.
2
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
2. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bhatia in view of Venables and further in view of Zukas. 4 Id. at 4--
6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner determined claims 1---6 and 8-10 to be
obvious over Bhatia in view of Venables. Id. at 2--4. In support of the
rejection, the Examiner found that Bhatia teaches an aluminum alloy
substrate. Id. at 3. Bhatia further teaches that the aluminum alloy substrate
may be anodized and, therefore, have an oxide layer. Id. The Examiner
further found that Bhatia teaches a coating comprising trivalent chromium
and nitrilotris (methylene) triphosphonic acid (NTMP) that is taught to
improve adhesion of subsequent layers. Id. The Examiner additionally
determined that Bhatia does not explicitly disclose an adhesive material nor
a second component adhesively bonded to the aluminum substrate. Id.
The Examiner found that Venables teaches an aluminum substrate
having an aluminum oxide layer. Id. Venables further teaches a coating of
an amino phosphonate such as nitrilotris (methylene) triphosphonic acid
adsorbed to the aluminum oxide. Id. The Examiner additionally found that
Venables teaches a second aluminum substrate bonded to the first. Id.
The Examiner additionally determined as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to form the adhesively bonded
aluminum structure of [Bhatia] '486 with the structure and
adhesive of Venables in order to gain the benefit of effective
determination of stability in high humidity environment and to
4 US 5,944,935, issued Aug. 31, 1999.
3
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
be representative of use in aircraft applications as taught by
Venables.
Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the rejection is so ambiguous regarding which
components of the references the Examiner relies upon that it fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 3--4. Appellant
additionally argues that the Examiner has not stated an adequate reason to
combine the teachings of Bhatia and Venables. Id. at 4.
"[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie
case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in 'notify[ing] the applicant
... by stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement,
together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of
the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application."' In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 132). "It is
well-established that the Board is free to affirm an examiner's rejection so
long as 'appellants have had a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the
rejection."' In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Here, the Examiner has given unambiguous notice of the legal theory
relied upon---obviousness-as well as the prior art references relied upon-
Bhatia and Venables. See Final Act. 2--4. Claim 1 requires four elements
that may be summarized as follows: 1) a metallic substrate having an oxide
layer; 2) a bond promoter; 3) an adhesive; and, 4) a component bonded to
the substrate by the adhesive. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). The Examiner
found that Bhatia teaches 1) a metallic substrate having an oxide layer and 2)
the specific bond promoter of the claim. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further
found that Bhatia "does not explicitly disclose the adhesive material and
4
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
second component adhesively bonded structure." Id. That is, the Examiner
stated that Bhatia does not teach the third and fourth elements of the claim.
The Examiner additionally found that Venables teaches an adhesive
material (element 3) and a component bonded to the substrate by the
adhesive (element 4). Id. That the Examiner also noted that Venables
teaches a metallic substrate having an oxide layer (element 1) and a bond
promoter similar to that claimed (element 2) does not render the rejection
ambiguous. It is not unusual for two references in the same field to each
teach the same element of a claim.
Nor is the stated reason to combine inadequate. The Examiner states
that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Bhatia and Venables "to gain the benefit of effective
determination of stability in high humidity environment." Id. Venables
teaches a "wedge test" to evaluate the stability of adhesively bonded
aluminum structures in a high humidity environment. Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner's finding that one of skill in the art would
combine the elements as claimed in order to evaluate the stability of a given
bond promoter and adhesive.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not shown error in the
rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-10.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 7-9 as obvious over
Bhatia in view of Venables and further in view of Zukas. Final Act. 4---6.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the component
includes a honeycomb material." Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
The Examiner found that Zukas teaches a honeycomb core material
22, which may be aluminum alloy, bonded through an adhesive layer 32,
5
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
which may be epoxy, to a face sheet 30. Appellant argues that the Examiner
has not stated an adequate reason to combine Zukas' s teachings with those
of Bhatia and Venables. Appeal Br. 5. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner
determined that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to create a
structure with "one aluminum substrate being an aluminum alloy face sheet
and another aluminum substrate being a honeycomb core material, in order
to gain the benefit of reduced weight at equivalent stiffness as taught by
Zukas." Final Act. 5.
As best understood, Appellant argues that Zukas' s primary teaching is
to use less adhesive than prior bonded honeycomb structures and, therefore,
its teachings are applicable only to improvement of honeycomb structures
and not to Bhatia or Venables. Appeal Br. 5. A reference, however, may be
read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose. KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-21 (2007); In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, Appellant argues that reducing the
amount of adhesive used is Zukas' s primary purpose. Zukas additionally
teaches, however, that bonded sandwich structures with a honeycomb core
have "high stiffness" with "minimal weight." Zukas 1:9-14, Fig. 2. The
Examiner may rely upon such teaching.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the rejection
of claims 7-9.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 as obvious over Bhatia in view
of Venables is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7-9 as obvious over Bhatia
in view of Venables and further in view of Zukas is affirmed.
6
Appeal2017-006916
Application 14/046,023
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7