Ex Parte Lonsdorfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

13638141 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/638,141 11/29/2012 Georg Lonsdorfer AIRBUS 3.3-499 5299
530 7590 02/28/2017
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
BELL, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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 GEORG LONSDORFER,
REMO HINZ, ADRIAN WACHENDORF,
NIELS DESCHAUER, and ADAM ANDRA
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed September 28, 2012
(“Spec.”); the Final Action delivered electronically on January 6, 2015
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2015 (“App. Br.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer delivered electronically on August 13, 2015 (“Ans.”).
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
2 Appellants identify Airbus Operations GmbH as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a device and method for the production of
essentially two-dimensionally arched large-area structural components from
a metal sheet or fiber composite material. Independent claim 13, highlighted
for emphasis, and independent 22, which are both reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A device for the production of essentially two-
dimensionally arched large-area structural components from a
fiber composite material, comprising:
a jig having a convex mounting surface comprising a
plurality of receiving channels for the insertion of construction
components and configured to be loaded with auxiliary
materials,
wherein the loaded jig is configured to interact with a
laminating bonding device having a corresponding shape for
forming the structural component under pressure,
wherein the jig comprises a mounting shell configured
to be elastically deformed inwards at the edge thereof, and
a plurality of actuators articulated to the inside and
configured to move the mounting shell between an extended
position (A) and at least one retracted position (B),
wherein, in the at least one retracted position, the jig is
configured to be moved relative to the receiving channels from
the laminating bonding device without undercuts,
wherein the actuators are arranged spaced apart from
each other along first and second opposing edge regions of the
mounting shell for enabling the mounting shell to move
between the extended position (A) and the at least one retracted
position (B), and
wherein the mounting shell consists of one arched metal
sheet.
2
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
22. A method for the production of essentially two-
dimensionally arched large-area structural components from a
fiber composite material, the method comprising:
deforming radially inwards and retracting a mounting
shell of a downwards-arched jig loaded with construction
components and bringing together with a corresponding
laminating bonding device,
deforming towards the outside the mounting shell of the
retracted jig to initiate the transfer of the construction
components to the laminating bonding device, and
deforming towards the interior the mounting shell of the
retracted jig to, after transfer of the construction components to
the laminating bonding device, extend the jig without
undercuts.
App. Br. 19 and 20 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Dublinski et al.
(“Dublinski”)
Chapman et al.
(“Chapman”)
Lorkowski et al.
(“Lorkowski”)
US 5,217,669 June 8, 1993
US 2006/0108058 Al May 25, 2006
US 2008/0251647 Al Oct. 16, 2008
REJECTIONS3
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: claims
13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 over Dublinski in view of Chapman and further in
3 The rejection of claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
view of Lorkowski; claim 22 over Dublinski in view of Chapman; claim 23
over Dublinski and Chapman in further in view of Applicants’ admission of
prior art. Final Act. 3, 7, and 8. Claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 are
provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over
claims 1—4 and 6—11 of co-pending Application No. 13/628,919. Id. at 9.
OPINION
Rejection of claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 under § 103(a)
Claim 13 and its dependent claims require that “the jig comprises a
mounting shell configured to be elastically deformed inwards at the edge
thereof ” App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). The Examiner
finds that Dublinski teaches this limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Dublinski
col. 7,11. 10-17 and 45-55).
Appellants argue that, if one assumes the semi-rigid tool 11 of
Dublinski is the mounting shell, then the reference fails to disclose or
suggest the semi-rigid tool 11 is configured to be elastically deformed
inwards at an edge thereof. App. Br. 11.
4
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
Dublinski’s Figures 1 and 4 are reproduced below:
Figure 1 of Dublinski is an illustration of a finished article of its
invention including integrally molded struts and supports. Dublinski col. 3,
11. 31—32. Figure 4 of Dublinski is a front view of a complete mated tool 9,
including rigid tool half 10 and semi-rigid tool half 11 supported by
strongback 12. Id. at col. 6,11. 65—68. Release actuators 14, including their
extensible cylinders 15, controllably lift the semi-rigid tool after molding.
Id. at col. 7,11. 9-13.
Figures 2 and 3 of the instant Application are reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
Figure 2 of the Application is a diagrammatic view of a jig with a
deformable mounting shell. Spec. |25. As indicated by the rows of arrows
in Figure 2, the mounting shell at the edge can be elastically deformed
inwards using a plurality of actuators 5a and 5b articulated along both
opposing edge regions 6a and 6b of the mounting shell. Id. at 132.
Figure 3 of the Application illustrates a first method-related step for
the production of an arched structural component comprising an outwards-
arched mounting surface, or mounting shell. Id. at || 26 and 31. The
mounting shell predominantly at the edge is elastically deformable between
an extended position A and at least a retracted position B by way of a
plurality of actuators. Id. at| 10.
Taking the multiple references in the drawings and the Specification
to “the edge of the mounting shell” as guidance for construing claim 13’s
limitation of a “jig comprising a mounting shell configured to be elastically
deformed inwards at the edge thereof” we find that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Although Dublinski teaches
some deformation of the mounting shell by actuators located away from the
edge of the mounting shell, the reference does not teach deformation at the
edge of the mounting shell. On this basis, we reverse the rejection of claim
13. We likewise reverse the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 that
depend from claim 13.
Rejection of claims 22 and 23 under § 103(a)
Claim 22 is independent and claim 23 depends from it. Claim 22 is a
method claim and differs substantially from claim 13. See App. Br. 19 and
20. For example, claim 22 does not contain the limitation “wherein the jig
6
Appeal 2016-000724
Application 13/638,141
comprises a mounting shell configured to be elastically deformed inwards at
the edge thereof,” the basis of our reversal on the rejection of claim 13.
Appellants contend, incorrectly, that claims 22 and 23 depend from
claim 13. Id. at 17. Therefore, Appellants’ argument that claims 22 and 23
are allowable “[a]t least by virtue of their dependence from claim 13” is also
incorrect. Id. Appellants waive any other arguments for patentability of
claims 22 and 23. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection
of claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23
Claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the
ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1—4 and 6—11 of co­
pending Application No. 13/628,919. Final Act. 9. Appellants did not seek
review of this provisional rejection, and we do not express any opinion on it.
See Ex parte Jerg, No. 2011-000044, 2012 WL 1375142, at *3 (BPAI April
4, 2012) (Informative Decision) (holding that the Board has discretion
whether or not to reach provisional double patenting rejections).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 15, 16,
18, 20, and 21 is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7