Ex Parte Godwin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2013

11420144 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte L. GRANT GODWIN
____________

Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, REMY J. VANOPHEM and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RICE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
L. Grant Godwin (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to composite panels for
use in the construction of structures such as buildings and vehicles.” Spec.,
para. [0002]. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with italics for emphasis, is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A panel assembly comprising,
a fiber-reinforced polymer panel including composite
first and second sheets, a core sandwiched between the first and
second sheets; and a plurality of fiber insertions extending from
the first sheet through the core to the second sheet with the
density of the fiber insertions per unit area varying over
portions of the panel to reinforce the portions of panel having a
higher density of fiber insertions; and
a protective cover secured to the panel.

REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Messenger US 2003/0167716 A1 Sep. 11, 2003

THE REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Messenger.
(2) Claims 2-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Messenger.

ANALYSIS
Rejection (1) ‒ Anticipation
Appellant argues claims 1 and 5-8 together. App. Br. 6-9. We select
claim 1 as representative; claims 5-8 thus stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

3
Messenger discloses a building panel comprising an insulative core
interconnected with interior and exterior concrete panels by reinforcing
carbon fiber materials, including a plurality of carbon fiber strands 10.
Messenger, paras. [0011] and [0032]. More specifically, Messenger
discloses that:
The building panel 2 is generally comprised of an insulative
core 4 which has an interior and exterior surface and a
substantially longitudinal plane extending from a lower portion
to an upper portion of said insulative core 4. The interior
surface of the insulative core 4 is positioned immediately
adjacent an interior concrete layer 14, while the exterior layer
of the insulative core 4 is positioned substantially adjacent an
exterior concrete layer 16. An interior carbon fiber grid 6 and
an exterior carbon fiber grid 8 are additionally positioned
substantially adjacent the interior and exterior surfaces of the
insulative core 4, respectively, and which are preferably
embedded within the interior concrete layer 14 and the exterior
concrete layer 16. These carbon fiber grids are connected to a
plurality of carbon fiber strands 10 which are oriented in a
substantially diagonal configuration with respect to the
longitudinal plane of the insulative core 4. The plurality of
carbon fiber strands extend from the exterior concrete carbon
fiber grid 8 through the insulative core 4 and are interconnected
to the interior carbon fiber grid 6 on the opposing side.
Id. at para. [0032] (bold omitted). The carbon fiber strands 10 generally
have a thickness of about 0.05-0.4 inches and a “tow” size of about 12,000-
48,000 individual strands. Id. at para. [0038]. As viewed from the face of a
wall panel 2, carbon fibers 10 are oriented in parallel, vertical lines spaced
apart from each other, such that there are vertical areas of panel in the spaces
between the vertical lines without reinforcing carbon fiber strands. See id. at
figs. 1 and 5.
Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

4
With respect to the limitation of claim 1 “the density of the fiber
insertions per unit area varying over portions of the panel,” the Examiner
finds that Messenger’s Figure 5 shows the carbon fiber strands 10 varying in
two ways and that “[t]he first way that the density varies is by placing the
strands in a spaced relationship.” Ans. 5-6. The Examiner explains that this
spaced relationship “shows the density as high in the places where the
strands are placed and [nonexistent] in places where it [sic] is not placed.”
Id. at 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position is erroneous because
it “completely obviates the recitation of ‘the density of the fiber insertions
per unit area varying over a portion of the panel’ in claim 1.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner’s position that the density of carbon
fibers in Messenger varies between areas where there are no carbon fibers
and areas where carbon fibers are present is nonsensical and wholly ignores
the meaning of the term ‘density,’” that “[t]he recitation of ‘density of fiber
insertions’ is predicated on some fibers being present” and that “[t]here can
be no density of carbon fibers if there are no carbon fibers present.” Id.
(bold and italics omitted).
Appellant’s Specification describes composite wall panel 100 as
having areas where no fibers are present. See Reply Br. 3. In composite
wall panel 100, “a number of unstable fibers (fiber insertions) 108” are
inserted through a core 102 and face sheets 104, 106, and spaced apart from
each other, such that there are areas of panel 100 where no fiber insertions
are present. Spec., paras. [0024] and [0026]; figs. 1 and 2. The
Specification discloses that “at least one cavity or other utility space 120
may be formed in the composite wall panel 100 in the core 102 between a
number of the fibers 108,” i.e., in the areas of panel 100 where no fiber
Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

5
insertions are present. Spec., para. [0026] (emphasis added); fig. 2. As
further described in the Specification, “the insertion density of the fibers 108
may be non-uniform,” and “the insertion density of the fibers 108 may be
greater near the cavities 120 than away from the cavities 120 such that there
are more fibers 108 per unit area near the cavities 120 than away from the
cavities 120, thereby providing additional support for the cavities 120.” Id.
at para. [0038].
We give the words of the claim term “the density of the fiber
insertions per unit area varying over portions of the panel” their “broadest
reasonable meaning . . . as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in
applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). As Appellant has not pointed us to any definition or disclaimer in the
Specification,1 and we have found none, we construe “the density of the
fiber insertions per unit area varying over portions of the panel” as meaning
that, for any given unit area, the number of fiber insertions varies over
portions of the panel. Thus, as the Examiner reasoned, if any portion of a
panel having a given unit area contains a fiber insertion, while another area
of the panel having the same unit area does not contain a fiber insertion, the
panel would satisfy the limitation “the density of the fiber insertions per unit
area varying over portions of the panel,” as properly construed. Appellant’s

1 An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut
the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and
customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is
different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

6
argument that the claimed “density” cannot be zero (Reply Br. 3) has no
basis in the language of claim 1 and is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim term “the density of the fiber insertions per unit area varying over
portions of the panel” under a proper claim construction.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasoning “obviates the
recitation of ‘the density of the fiber insertions per unit area varying over a
portion of the panel’ in claim 1” is unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 3. The
Specification teaches that the density of the fiber insertions may be greater
near cavities than away from cavities “such that there are more fibers 108
per unit area near the cavities 120 than away from the cavities 120.” Spec.,
para. [0038]. The Examiner’s reasoning is consistent with this teaching. If a
cavity is located in an area of the panel near a fiber insertion, there will be
more fibers per unit area near the cavity than if the cavity is located in an
area of the panel where there are no panel insertions. Similarly, if the
number of fiber insertions in the vicinity of a cavity is greater than in other
areas of the panel, there will be more fibers per unit area near the cavity than
in the other areas.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Messenger. Claims 5-8 fall with claim 1.
Rejection (2) ‒ Obviousness
Appellant argues claims 2-4, 9 and 10 as a group. We select claim 2
as representative. Appellant also argues claims 11-17 as a group. We select
claim 11 as representative. Finally, Appellant argues claims 18-20 as a
group. We select claim 18 as representative.

Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

7
Claims 2-4, 9 and 10
In arguing the patentability of claim 2, which depends from claim 1,
Appellant repeats his argument in connection with claim 1 that Messenger
does not disclose “the density of the fiber insertions per unit area varying
over portions of the panel.” Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 9-10. For the reasons
discussed supra in connection with claim 1, we disagree. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Messenger. Clams 3, 4, 9 and 10 fall with claim 2.
Claims 11-20
Appellant relies on his arguments with respect to claim 2 to support
the patentability of claims 11 and 18. App. Br. 10-11. Appellant also
asserts that Messenger does not disclose “the density of the fiber insertions
per unit area varying over portions of the panel to reinforce the portions of
panel having a higher density of fiber insertions,” as recited in claims 11 and
18. Reply Br. 5. For the reasons discussed supra in connection with claims
1 and 2, we disagree. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Messenger. Claims
12-17 fall with claim 11, and claims 19 and 20 fall with claim 18.

Appeal 2011-002172
Application 11/420,144

8
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-20.
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

hh