Ex parte Matic et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2001

08845848 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2001)

Two amendments after the final rejection were filed as Paper No. 10 and 13 and both have1
been approved for entry by the examiner. See Paper Nos. 11 and 14 respectively.
1
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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PETER MATIC, RICHARD K. EVERETT,
VIRGINIA G. DEGIORGI, and ANDREW B. GELTMACHER

_____________
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before BARRETT, LALL, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 to 9. Claims 101
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
2
to 12 have been withdrawn from consideration, see Paper No. 3.
Claims 13 to 15 have been indicated by the examiner to have
allowable subject matter, see answer at page 1.
The disclosed invention is directed to a material test
specimen for conducting stress and strain measurements that is
tailored to provide information on multiaxial stress and
strain states in a controlled manner under tensile
deformation. The test specimen geometry employs combinations,
commonly called "stress concentrators", that generate stress
and strain gradients in the material under test. The geometry
is composed of three geometric features: first, a primary
outer geometry of uniform cross-section suitable for a tension
test machine which generates a global deformation field;
secondly, a secondary inner geometry that produces nonuniform
deformation from the global deformation; and lastly, a set of
tertiary inner geometries that modulate the nonuniform
deformation to promote or avoid fracture at various strain and
stress states as desired. After a test, a stress analysis is
performed utilizing appropriate analytical or computational
simulation to recreate the stress and strain histories
throughout the specimen. Correlation between the physically
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
3
observed event fracture and the calculated stress and strain
states are used to establish the fracture limits. Further
understanding of the invention can be had by the following
typical claim.
1. A test specimen to determine critical strain
and stress states for multiaxial fracture, comprised
of:
a material to be tested; and
said material having a geometry that will
generate a global deformation field.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Brull 4,590,804 May 27,
1986
Bronowicki et al. (Bronowicki) 5,022,272 June 11,
1991

Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bronowicki, while claims 3 to 9 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bronowicki in
view of Brull.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
4
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We affirm.
Appellants have discussed the two grounds of rejection
separately in the brief. We do likewise.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated
by Bronowicki by citing element 10 and col. 4 and line 14 of
Bronowicki at page 3 of the examiner’s answer. Appellants
argue, brief at page 11, that "[t]he device taught by
Bronowicki et al. [is] designed for use in low strain
situations whereas the Appellant’s [sic] claimed device is for
use in areas of high or large plasticity." Appellants also
argue, id., that “the structures taught by Bronowicki et al.
are all elastic, whereas the Appellant’s [sic] claimed device
defines large scale plasticity. The device taught by
Bronowicki et al. is an empirical determination where the
Appellant’s [sic] claimed device is quantitative in nature.”
Appellants also contend, id., that Bronowicki refers to “a
structural deformation or elongation, by which is meant a
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
5
global deformation caused by temperature change, inertial
forces or other causes affecting the entire structural
member.” Appellants conclude, id. at 12, that "Bronowicki et
al. could not be used to measure the stress and strain within
the Appellant’s [sic] test specimen." The examiner responds,
answer at page 5, that “the major portion of the Appellant’s
[sic] argument is the aspects of the intended use and the fact
that the cited reference to Bronowicki et al’s device is used
for another purposes [sic] than the Appellant’s [sic] device."
The examiner further contends that, id., "Bronowicki et al.,
clearly show all the fundamental elements of the invention,
i.e., regarding claims 1-2, a test specimen for stress or
strain characterization, comprised of a material to be tested,
such that the material having a uniform cross section geometry
that is capable of generating a global deformation."
We agree with the examiner’s position. To the extent of
the scope of claims 1 and 2, Bronowicki does show a test
specimen. We note that the nature of the test specimen is not
recited in these claims. We also note that Bronowicki
discloses the global deformation produced in the test
specimen, See col. 3, lines 41-45 and col. 4, lines 11-16.
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
6
Therefore we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 2 by Bronowicki.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 3 to 9 are rejected under this ground as being
obvious over Bronowicki in view of Brull at pages 3 and 4 of
the examiner’s answer. The examiner asserts, id. at page 4,
that "[i]t would have been obvious... to modify Bronowicki et
al., by using teachings of Brull to provide for various
superimposed geometry to trigger a nonuniform deformation for
an intended desirable use. Because such geometries cause the
material to be tested in a variety of shapes and effects for
more accurate procedure." Appellants argue, brief at page 13,
that "[n]either Bronowicki et al. nor Brull refer to the
generation of a global deformation field by the geometry of
the specimen, neither does Bronowicki et al. nor Brull refer
to the material to be tested having a secondary superimpose
[sic] geometry that produces nonuniform deformation. . .."
Regarding claim 3, the examiner responds, answer at page 6,
that the
"other two independent claims 3 and 6, simply adding
[sic] a secondary and a tertiary geometry. Such
criterion for provision to enhance a non uniform
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
7
deformation is well known as shown by the secondary
reference to Brull. Although Brull may not show the
exact geometries of the claimed invention, but [sic]
any of such geometries is only an obvious
modification of cited art."

We are persuaded by the examiner’s position. We find
that Brull discloses, for instance at col. 2, lines 58 through
60, that each of the coupons (specimens) includes a special
notch pattern comprised of at least one pair of notches
designed to produce a local stress concentration. Brull
further goes on to say that the notch pattern of each of the
coupons produces a stress field which varies in intensity from
relatively mild to very severe. Brull is clearly involved
with testing the specimens and studying the effect of notch
pattern in the concentration of stresses and strains in the
specimen. Therefore, we agree with the examiner that, in
further analysis of the stresses and strains in the Bronowicki
system, an artisan would have found it desirable to introduce
stress concentrators in Bronowicki such as notch patterns as
taught by Brull.
Appellants argue, brief at pages 14 and 15, that "[t]he
examiner cannot apply hindsight so as to find a teaching or
suggestion in the coted [sic] references to establish
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
8
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)." We are not convinced
by appellants’ argument. As we stated above, both Bronowicki
and Brull are directed to the testing of a specimen for
stresses and strains and both are designed to obtain as much
information regarding stresses and strain as the system would
allow. In our view, an artisan involved with the testing of a
specimen for stress and strain analysis would have found
obvious to look to Brull to modify Bronowicki’s system by
supplying a notch pattern type of stress concentrators in the
specimen. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 3 to 9 over Bronowicki and Brull.
In conclusion, we have sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 2 and the obviousness rejection of
claims 3 to 9. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 3 to
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
9
AFFIRMED
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

ASSOCIATE COUNSEL (PATENTS)
Code 3008.2
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Washington, DC 20375-5000
Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
10