Ex Parte Grove-Nielsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13765781 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131765,781 02/13/2013
22116 7590 09/16/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erik Grove-Nielsen
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.
2011P23749US 1075
EXAMINER
DANIELS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK GROVE-NIELSEN
Appeal2015-005519
Application 13/765,781
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of manufacturing a fibre
reinforced composite. Fibre reinforced plastic composites are said to be used in a
variety of technical products such as cars, airplanes, and wind turbine blades. To
fabricate these composites, the fibre parts are said to be placed in a mold, the mold
Appeal2015-005519
Application 13/765,781
cavity is filled with a liquid resin, and the resin is cured to form a matrix material.
Spec. i-f 3.
The Appellant discloses that the fibre parts are commonly supplied as fabrics
of roving yarns and stitched together with thermoplastic sewing threads. Spee. i-f 3.
Tensioning of the stitching thread is said to lead to local deformation of the roving
yam bundles. In those areas, the fibre content is said to reach an undesirably high
value inside the roving yam and, at the same time, an area outside the roving yam
is left without fibres. According to the Appellant, the area left without fibres will
have a low fibre content or consist of plastic resin alone and be vulnerable to crack
formation. Areas with very high fibre content, on the other hand, will impair the
fatigue properties of the composite because more fibres will be in physical contact
with neighboring fibres. Spec. i-f 4.
The Appellant discloses a method for manufacturing a fibre reinforced
composite which improves the uniformity of the fibre distribution. Spec. i-f 6. The
method comprises the step of connecting fibre material together with a thread
whereby the thread at least partly degrades before finishing the manufacturing
process of the fibre reinforced composite. Spec. i-f 7. According to the Appellant,
when the thread degrades, or at least the tension of the thread is removed, the fibres
in the roving yams can move freely, resulting in a material with uniform fibre
distribution and no resin rich pockets. Spec. i-f 14.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief dated December 8, 2014 ("App. Br."). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
1. A method of manufacturing a fibre reinforced composite using
fibre material, comprising:
2
Appeal2015-005519
Application 13/765,781
impregnating fibre material using liquid resin for forming a
matix [sic, matrix] material of the fibre reinforced composite, the fibre
material connected by a thread comprising hollow fibres; and
avoiding resin rich pockets and areas of excess fibre content by
reducing restriction of fibre material caused by the thread connecting
the fibre material, the thread at least partly degrades before finishing
the manufacturing process in order to reduce the restriction.
App. Br. 9 (emphasis added).
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1-8, 10-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Engdahl et al. 1 in view of Wilson et al.; 2
(2) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engdahl in
view of Wilson, and further in view of Jacob et al.; 3
(3) claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engdahl
in view of Wilson, and further in view of Palmer;4 and
(4) claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Engdahl in view of Wilson, and further in view of Althoff et al. 5
The rejections are sustained for the reasons stated in the Examiner's Answer
dated March 2, 2015 ("Ans."). We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Engdahl discloses a method of manufacturing a fibre
reinforced composite which avoids resin rich pockets by providing a thread or yam
that dissolves during the resin curing stage (i.e., before finishing the manufacturing
1 US 4,913,937, issued April 3, 1990 ("Engdahl").
2 US 5,490,602, issued February 13, 1996 ("Wilson").
3 US 2011/0058948 Al, published March 10, 2011 ("Jacob").
4 US 6,187,411 Bl, issued February 13, 2001 ("Palmer").
5 US 2009/0146433 Al, published June 11, 2009 ("Althoff').
3
Appeal2015-005519
Application 13/765,781
process). Ans. 2, 7; see also Engdahl, col. 5, 11. 31-37 (thread melts or dissolves
thereby occupying resin rich spaces created during the sewing operation); Engdahl,
col. 4, 1. 67---col. 5, 1. 2 (threads may melt at a temperature before the actual
"'curing temperature'"). The Examiner finds the only difference between the
method recited in claim 1 and the method disclosed in Engdahl is that "Engdahl is
silent to the thread or yam comprising hollow fibers." Ans. 2.
The Examiner finds Wilson discloses a composite structure that may be
stitched using various interchangeable yams, including monofilament and hollow
monofilament. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds the hollow monofilament disclosed in
Wilson is comprised of the same material as the thread disclosed in Engdahl. Ans.
2-3.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the hollow monofilament disclosed in Wilson for the
thread disclosed in Engdahl because:
(a) Wilson teaches that monofilaments and hollow monofilaments are
substitutable in a similar application, or (b) Wilson teaches that the
hollow cross sections may improve the speed of dissolution of the
fiber by permitting liquid into the core ( 15: 1--4) and one would have
found this to be a desirable benefit in Engdahl for the same reasons.
Ans. 3.
The Appellant argues that "Wilson teaches away from dissolving the hollow
fibres during pre-cure" because, in the process of Wilson, "the fibres are to be
dissolved in a post-cure." App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. In the
rejection on appeal, the Examiner merely replaces the thread of Engdahl with the
hollow monofilament disclosed in Wilson. The Appellant does not direct us to any
evidence showing that the hollow monofilament disclosed in Wilson would not be
4
Appeal2015-005519
Application 13/765,781
capable of dissolving during the resin curing stage in Engdahl' s method. In that
regard, we note that the hollow monofilament disclosed in Wilson and the thread
disclosed in Engdahl are made of some of the same materials. See Engdahl, col. 5,
11. 18-21 (suitable resins for the thread include polyamides, styrene plastics,
acrylonitrile polymers, and polyesters); Wilson, col. 15, 11. 17-20, 28--41 (suitable
dissoluble polymers for the monofilaments include polyamide, polystyrene,
polyacrylonitrile, and polyester). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner's finding that the hollow monofilament disclosed in Wilson
would have been a suitable substitute for the thread disclosed in Engdahl.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5