Ex Parte Lunde

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2003

08790559 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GERALD A. LUNDE
___________
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before GARRIS, LIEBERMAN, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claims 20-44 and 57-59. These
are all of the claims remaining in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method useful in forming a composite
body. In one embodiment, the method includes the steps of providing a mandrel body,
positioning a bladder around the mandrel body, wherein the bladder has a caul sheet
section coupled to the outer surface thereof, and placing a plurality of fibers around the
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 2
bladder and caul sheet to form an uncured body. In another embodiment, the method
comprises the steps of providing a mandrel body having one or more fluid openings
along with a mandrel body fluid system capable of supplying pressurized fluid and a
vacuum to said one or more openings, and placing a plurality of fibers around the outer
surface of the mandrel body to form an uncured body. This appealed subject matter is
adequately illustrated by representative claims 20 and 33 which read as follows:
20. A method useful in forming a composite body, comprising the steps of:
providing a mandrel body having an outer surface;
positioning a bladder having outer and inner surfaces around said mandrel body;
said bladder having at least one caul sheet section coupled to said outer surface of said
bladder; and
placing a plurality of fibers around said bladder and caul sheet to form an
uncured body.
33. A method useful in forming a composite body, comprising the steps of:
providing a tool useful in forming a composite body, said tool comprising:
a mandrel body having an outer surface, said mandrel body having an
elongated shape and a longitudinal axis and having one or more fluid openings defined
in said mandrel body outer surface;
a mandrel body fluid system capable of supplying pressurized fluid and a
vacuum to said one or more openings in said mandrel body outer surface; and
placing a plurality of fibers around said outer surface of said mandrel body to
form an uncured body, said fibers being placed around said mandrel body in a plurality
of discontinuous segments juxtaposed in relation to each other such that said
discontinuous segments are capable of moving in relation to each other such that said
uncured body is expandable from within.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
VonVolkli 4,780,262 Oct. 25, 1988
Azzani et al. (Azzani) 5,013,514 May 7, 1991
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 3
Darrieux et al. (Darrieux) 5,571,357 Nov. 5, 1996
Lin et al. (Lin) 5,645,668 Jul. 8, 1997
Claims 20-23, 25-27, 38-44, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over VonVolkli in view of Lin, and claim 24 is correspondingly rejected
over these references and further in view of Azzani.
In addition, claims 20, 28-37, 57, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Darrieux in view of VonVolkli.
As indicated on page 14 of the Brief, certain of the appealed claims have been
grouped and argued separately on this appeal. Accordingly, in assessing the merits of
the above noted rejections, we have individually considered these separately grouped
and argued claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for a thorough
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant and by the examiner
concerning these rejections.
Opinion
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we will sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejections as applied against claims 33-36, 38, 39, 41-44, and 59. However, we
will not sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections as applied against claims 20-32, 37, 40,
57, and 58.
Each of these last mentioned claims is directed to a method which requires that
a caul sheet section be "coupled" to the outer surface of a bladder. For example,
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 4
independent claim 20 defines a method comprising the steps of providing a mandrel
body, positioning a bladder around the mandrel body wherein the bladder has "at least
one caul sheet section coupled to said outer surface of said bladder," and placing a
plurality of fibers around the bladder and caul sheet to form an uncured body.
Concerning the here claimed "coupled" feature, the examiner regards VonVolkli's
flexible boot and his weaved nylon fabric (i.e., see lines 52-56 in column 5) as
corresponding respectively to the appellant's claimed bladder and caul sheet section
and argues that "since the weaved nylon fabric is maintained onto the boot (bladder) [of
VonVolkli] . . . throughout the molding process, such an assembly can be considered as
'coupled'" (Answer, page 4). This argument is not well taken.
As correctly argued by the appellant, the weaved nylon fabric referred to by the
examiner becomes part of the finished radome product of VonVolkli (e.g., again see
lines 52-56 in column 5) and thus is intended by patentee to be separable from his
flexible boot. Indeed, VonVolkli expressly teaches using a release agent on the outer
surface of this boot in order to assist in separating the cured composite material of the
finished radome product from the boot (e.g., see lines 34-44 in column 5 in conjunction
with lines 7-22 in column 7). Under these circumstances, patentee's weaved nylon
fabric and boot cannot be regarded as satisfying the here claimed "coupled" feature
simply because the fabric and boot are temporarily in contact during a portion of
VonVolkli's method.
It is here appropriate to remind the examiner that application claims before the
Patent and Trademark Office are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385,
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 5
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Though broad, the examiner's interpretation of the claims under
review is not reasonable or consistent with the appellant's specification. For example,
on pages 17-19 of this specification, the appellant discloses an integral (as opposed to
a non-integral or separable) bladder/caul sheet embodiment wherein "a
caul sheet section 44 may be coupled or bonded to a bladder 43 in any suitable
manner, including by pre-fabrication and attachment with adhesive, or by laying up
uncured rubber and uncured prepreg fabric in a mold and then co-curing them
together" (page 19, lines 3-6). Furthermore, this disclosure is consistent with
commonly accepted definitions of the verb "coupled" (e.g., "To link together: connect"
or "To unite chemically;" Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984).
In light of the foregoing, we are convinced that it would be unreasonable and
inconsistent with the appellant's specification disclosure to interpret the here claimed
"coupled" feature as being satisfied by the mere contact which temporarily occurs
between VonVolkli's weaved nylon fabric and boot. It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's prior art rejection of the claims which require this "coupled" feature which
are claims 20-32, 37, 40, 57, and 58.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 38, 39, and 41-44 as being
unpatentable over VonVolkli in view of Lin, we share the examiner's basic conclusion
that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to provide the method
of VonVolkli with a fluid system capable of supplying, not only a vacuum as taught by
patentee but also, pressurized fluid to the mandrel body openings in view of and for the
reasons taught by Lin. An artisan would have been particularly motivated to provide
VonVolkli with this pressurized fluid feature in order to obtain the benefits taught by Lin
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 6
(e.g., see lines 15-21 in column 5), namely, assistance in detaching from the mandrel
body the inflatable bladder/boot and composite body of VonVolkli.
In support of his nonobviousness position, the appellant argues that "Von Volkli
states nothing about the need to take any further steps to reduce friction between the
boot and the support fixture [i.e., mandrel body]" and "[t]herefore, Applicant submits that
the vacuum drawn between the boot and mold assembly allows the boot and uncured
composite to be removed from the support fixture without the need for further
assistance" (Brief, page 22). The appellant then concludes "[t]hus there is no reason
to combine the teachings of the two references [i.e., VonVolkli and Lin]" (Brief, page
22). We cannot agree.
In our view, the cumulative teachings of the references under consideration
would have motivated the artisan to combine them in the manner proposed by the
examiner so as to ensure an effective removal of VonVolkli's boot/bladder from his
support fixture/mandrel body. Indeed, as indicated by the examiner on page 12 of the
Answer, the fact that VonVolkli applies powdered talc between his fixture and boot (e.g.,
see lines 34-37 in column 5) would have suggested the potential for difficulty in
assembling as well as disassembling these structures and therefore would have
suggested the desirability (and thus the obviousness) of providing VonVolkli's fluid
system with a pressurized fluid supply as taught by Lin in order to avoid such potential
difficulties.
The appellant also argues that the examiner's proposed combination of
VonVolkli and Lin would not have been obvious because it would have changed
VonVolkli's principle of operation. We do not agree that VonVolkli's principle of
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 7
operation would have been so changed as to militate against an obviousness
conclusion. This is because the modified method of VonVolkli would have remained
unchanged in all respects except for the use of pressurized fluid to assist in
disengaging the support fixture and boot. We do not perceive and the appellant does
not explain why this one modification would alter VonVolkli's principle of operation to
such an extent that the modification would not have been obvious to an artisan with
ordinary skill.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we will sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejection of claims 38, 39, and 41-44 as being unpatentable over VonVolkli in
view of Lin.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 33-36 and 59, we additionally share the
examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide the pressurized fluid
system of Darrieux with the capability of applying a vacuum of the type and for the
reasons taught by VonVolkli. This provision would have been motivated by the desire
to combine the benefits of Darrieux's pressurized fluid system with the benefits of
VonVolkli's vacuum system. In support of his contrary view, the appellant argues that,
"[s]ince bladder 12 in Darrieux is not sealed until after the layup of fibers has occurred,
Applicant submits that a vacuum as taught by Von Volkli (i.e., a vacuum used during
the layup procedure) would be useless as applied to Darrieux because no seal is
present in Darrieux that would prevent air from continuing to be drawn through the
openings in bar 6" (Brief, page 41).
This argument is unpersuasive because it is implicitly premised upon an
incorrect test for obviousness. The test for obviousness is not, as the appellant seems
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 8
to believe, whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference or that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In making his argument, the appellant contends an artisan would have bodily
incorporated VonVolkli's vacuum feature into the method/structure of Darrieux to
thereby yield the useless result of an inoperable vacuum system. This not the test for
obviousness. Id. Moreover, such a contention presumes stupidity rather than skill on
the artisan. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In
applying the correct test for obviousness, we (like the examiner) are led to the
conclusion that the combined teachings of Darrieux and VonVolkli would have
suggested to the artisan providing Darrieux's pressurized fluid system with a vacuum
feature in order to obtain the benefits taught by VonVolkli.
For these reasons and those expressed in the Answer, the § 103 rejection of
claims 33-36 and 59 as being unpatentable over Darrieux in view of VonVolkli also will
be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 9
)
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Paul Lieberman )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Jeffrey T. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0888
Application No. 08/790,559
Page 10
Brian W. Peterman
Arnold, White, and Durkee
P.O. Box 4433
Houston, TX 77210-4433
dem