Ex Parte Mcclure et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 12, 2003

09228433 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 12, 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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte EDWARD NORMAN MCCLURE,
STEVEN ALAN JACKSON
and PHILIP J. SWEESY
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before STAAB, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Edward Norman McClure et al. appeal from the final rejection
(Paper No. 15) of claims 1, 3 through 6 and 8 through 13, all of
the claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “fiber-reinforced resin structures,
and more particularly to a process for optimizing resin
distribution with the incorporation of a grooved core integral to
the fiber-reinforced resin structure” (specification, page 1).
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
2
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Palmer et al. (Palmer) 4,942,013 Jul. 17, 1990
Seemann, III et al. (Seemann) 5,721,034 Feb. 24, 1998
Louderback et al. (Louderback) 5,885,513 Mar. 23, 1999
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3 through 6 and 8 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Louderback in view
of Palmer and Seemann.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 18 and 20) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 19) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites a
process for optimizing resin distribution during VARTM (vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding) fabrication of a fiber-
reinforced resin structure having a core body with a core upper
surface and at least one fiber-reinforced ply disposed upon the
core upper surface. The claimed process comprises, inter alia,
the steps of forming longitudinal resin distribution grooves
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
3
along the core upper surface substantially parallel to the
longitudinal resin flow axis and arraying lateral resin
distribution grooves along the core upper surface by forming the
lateral resin distribution grooves to intersect the longitudinal
resin distribution grooves, wherein “the lateral resin
distribution grooves are selectively spaced to wet the fiber-
reinforced ply at substantially equal ply resin wetting rates in
directions along the longitudinal resin flow axis and
perpendicular thereto across the core upper surface upon the
introduction of resin.” As framed by the appellants, the
dispositive issue in the appeal is whether the combined teachings
of Louderback, Palmer and Seemann would have suggested a process
embodying the foregoing selective spacing of the lateral resin
distribution grooves.
All three of the applied references pertain to VARTM
fabrication of a fiber-reinforced resin structure having a core
body and at least one fiber-reinforced ply disposed upon the core
upper surface. Finding that Louderback, the primary reference
applied in support of the rejection, does not disclose the step
of forming lateral resin distribution grooves which intersect the
longitudinal resin distribution grooves 60a in the upper surface
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
4
of foam layer or core 20, the examiner turns to Palmer’s
disclosure of a core 158 having intersecting longitudinal and
transverse grooves 160 and 162 on its upper surface to overcome
this deficiency in Louderback. Notwithstanding the appellants’
arguments to the contrary, Palmer’s teaching (see column 12,
lines 18 through 42; and column 13, lines 26 through 36) that
such grooves afford rapid and uniform impregnation of the plies
sandwiching the core would have provided the artisan with ample
suggestion or motivation to utilize intersecting longitudinal and
transverse grooves on the upper surface of Louderback’s core.
Indeed, Louderback’s statement that “grooves 60a can . . . extend
in longitudinal, transverse and/or other directions to distribute
resin” (column 5, lines 14 through 17) arguably would have
suggested the same thing. The examiner allows, however, that
even as so modified in view of Palmer, the Louderback process
would still lack response to the selective spacing of the lateral
resin distribution grooves required by claim 1. The examiner’s
reliance on Seemann to cure this shortcoming is unsound.
Seemann discloses a core 12 having on its surface 16 one or
more main feeder grooves 14 and a plurality of microgrooves 18
arranged transversely to the main feeder grooves. According to
Seemann, “[t]he cross-sectional area of the main feeder groove[s]
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
5
and the cross-sectional area and spacing of the microgrooves are
optimized to provide a suitable time to allow the resin to
impregnate all of the fiber material before curing without
leaving unimpregnated areas” (column 4, lines 17 through 21).
Equating this statement to a teaching of substantially equal ply
resin wetting rates in the longitudinal and transverse directions
(see page 5 in the answer), the examiner submits that
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to have optimized
the spacing of the longitudinal and lateral resin
distribution grooves as taught by Seemann, III et al.
(‘034) in the process of Louderback et al. (‘513) in
view of Palmer et al. (‘013) in order to obtain equal
wetting rates due to a variety of reasons such as to
improve wetting of the reinforcement layers, avoid
resin-rich or resin-free areas, improve resin to fiber
ratio, etc. and also because Seemann, III et al. (‘034)
teach that optimization allows the resin to impregnate
all of the fiber material before curing without leaving
unimpregnated areas [answer, pages 5 and 6].
The Seemann reference, however, does not provide any factual
basis for the examiner’s determination that it teaches or would
have suggested substantially equal ply resin wetting rates in the
longitudinal and transverse directions. Seemann’s broadly stated
objective of optimizing the cross-sectional area of the main
feeder grooves and the cross-sectional area and spacing of the
microgrooves to allow complete resin impregnation before curing
does not ostensibly require substantially equal ply resin wetting
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
6
rates, and the examiner has not cogently explained or
demonstrated, nor is it evident, why the artisan would have
gleaned therefrom any suggestion of substantially equal ply resin
wetting rates.
Thus, the combined teachings of Louderback, Palmer and
Seemann do not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 3 through 6 and 8 through 13, as
being unpatentable over Louderback in view of Palmer and Seemann.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through 6
and 8 through 13 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
7
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
8
STETINA, BRUNDA, GARRED & BRUCKER
75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656