Ex Parte Kruse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

13705290 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131705,290 12/05/2012
530 7590 10/27/2016
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Kruse
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.
AIRBUS 3.0-472 3210
EXAMINER
HANDVILLE, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS KRUSE and PAULIN FIDEU 1
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JULIA
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pacchione (WO 2011/069899 A2, published June 16, 2011, with US
2013/0149501 Al, published June 13, 2013, relied on and cited to as the
English language equivalent) in view of Kleineberg (EP 1 531 035 Al,
published May 18, 2005, with the machine translation of record relied on
and cited to as the English language equivalent) and MacDonald (US
1 Airbus Operations GmbH is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
6,450,450 Bl, issued Sept. 17, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a fiber composite component assembly comprising
first and second plate-shaped composite structures (1, 2) configured to be
joined in an overlap connection having an adhesive layer and a mechanical
reinforcement means ( 5), wherein the composite components comprise a
spaced plurality of partial regions (3a, 3b) not containing synthetic resin and
wherein the mechanical reinforcement means is configured to pass through
the partial regions (sole independent claim 1; Figs. 1-2).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A fiber composite component assembly compnsmg:
at least first and second plate-shaped composite
structures configured to be joined in the form of an overlap
connection and made from synthetic-resin embedded fibers and
integrally interconnected by an adhesive layer arranged in
between; and
mechanical reinforcement means;
wherein the at least first and second fiber composite
components comprise a plurality of partial regions not
containing synthetic resin, said partial regions arranged in series
with an edge spacing and a web spacing, the partial regions
configured to be brought to flush conformity with each other
and to be arranged so as to be spaced apart from each other; and
wherein the mechanical reinforcement means is
configured to be bonded with synthetic resin and to pass
through the partial regions.
2
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 2-5 (Br. 16). Accordingly, these dependent claims will
stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons expressed in the
Final Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Pacchione discloses a fiber composite
component assembly comprising first and second plate-shaped composite
structures joined in an overlap connection having an adhesive layer and a
mechanical reinforcement means but fails to disclose a plurality of partial
regions not containing synthetic resin as required by claim 1 (Final Action
3--4, citing, e.g., Pacchione Figs. 7c and 7d; Ans. 3--4). The Examiner
concludes that, in view of Kleine berg's teaching of removing resin from
separate composites and then joining the composites by re-infiltrating them
with resin, it would have been obvious (i) to remove the synthetic resin from
Pacchione's composite structures prior to joining them with the mechanical
reinforcement means in order to avoid the health hazards taught by
MacDonald to be associated with dust generated by mechanically joining
composites that have cured resin therein and (ii) to re-infiltrate the
composites with resin after joining them with mechanical reinforcement
means (Final Action 4---6; Ans. 4---6).
Appellants argue that Pacchione does not disclose plate-shaped
composite structures joined in an overlap connection as claimed (Br. 5-6)
but subsequently concede that this claim 1 feature is described in
Pacchione's paragraph 59 (id. at 6). We emphasize that, in responding to
3
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
Appellants' arguments in the Final Action, the Examiner cited paragraph 59
as disclosing the claim feature in question (Final Action 7).
Appellants further contend "[in] the only embodiment of Pacchione
wherein both the fibre composite component 2 and the structural component
3 are cured, there is no mechanical reinforcement means" (Br. 13, citing
Pacchione i-f 60).
Appellants' contention is factually erroneous. In the paragraph cited
by Appellants, Pacchione expressly teaches that the connection of these
components includes "metal foil 4 ... formed with two anchoring portions 7
and 8 [i.e., mechanical reinforcement means] ... inserted between the
components 2 and 3" (Pacchione i-f 60).
Appellants argue that "[the Examiner has provided] no articulated line
I" • ' 1 1 • ' • 1 1 1 '1 T T1 • 1 or reasonmg as w wny an oramary an1san wowa app1y me Atezneoerg
process to modify the Pacchione components 2, 3" (Br. 8).
Again, Appellants' argument is factually erroneous. In the rejection
itself, the Examiner explicitly articulates a line of reasoning wherein one
with ordinary skill in this art would have modified Pacchione with the
Kleineberg process in order to avoid the health hazards taught by
MacDonald (Final Action 5-6; Ans. 4--5). Indeed, Appellants subsequently
acknowledge this reasoning (Br. 11) and disagree with it (id. at the 11-12).
However, this disagreement is focused ineffectively on the applied
references individually rather than their combined teachings as correctly
observed by the Examiner (Ans. 10-12).
4
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
Finally, Appellants contend "the Examiner further fails to articulate
why an ordinary artisan would employ the Kleineberg process for removing
matrix resin from a plurality of regions of each of the fibre composite 2 and
the structural component 3 of Pacchione [as required by claim 1]" (Br. 8;
see also id. at 14--16).
We do not agree. In the rejection, the Examiner concludes that, to
avoid the health hazards disclosed by MacDonald, it would have been
obvious "to remove the resin matrix [of Pacchione via the process taught by
Kleineberg] in an area where mechanical reinforcement means are required"
(Final Action 6 (emphasis added); Ans. 5). For example, in the Figures 7c-
7 d embodiment of Pacchione, resin would be removed via the Kleine berg
process in the respective areas or regions where individual mechanical
reinforcement means 7 and 8 are located because, in accordance with the
teachings of iviacDonald, these are the regions where health hazards would
be created if resin were not removed prior to mechanical reinforcement.
Concerning the spacing requirement of claim 1, an artisan would not have
removed resin in the spaces extending from these regions to the composite
edge, to the composite web, or to adjacent regions because such spaces do
not present the health hazard potential taught by MacDonald.
For the reasons stated above and given by the Examiner, Appellants
fail to show error in the § 103 rejection before us.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-005624
Application 13/705,290
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
6