Ex Parte Nordman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2012

10654765 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/654,765 09/04/2003 Paul S. Nordman 7784-000630 6910
65961 7590 05/21/2012
HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL S. NORDMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765
Technology Center 1791
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 20-22, 25, and
29-33. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

2
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of forming a
structural window panel for an airborne mobile platform and a method of
manufacturing a fuselage having a transparent window skin panel for use
with such a platform. Layers of an optically transparent pre-impregnated
resin tape comprising an aliphatic epoxy resin and fibers, which resin and
fibers have generally matching indices of refraction are employed in the
method. The resin tape layers are interleaved between a plurality of metal
sheets, which metal sheets are used to form a frame structure, to
substantially cover an entire surface portion of each one of the metal sheets,
wherein the sheets define a contiguous peripheral edge forming an opening
therein which opening is filled with the resin tape and the resin tape layers
extending substantially to the metal sheet peripheral edges. In this regard,
the resin tape layers and interleaved metal sheets are heated as a unitary
assembly with a tool such that the resin of the tape layers melts and
substantially covers the metal sheets and fills the opening to form a
structural panel which, after curing, includes a see-through window portion
in a metal frame structure (Spec. paras. 0007 and 0018-0027; Fig. 3).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of forming a structural window panel for an airborne
mobile platform, comprising:
using a plurality of non-fibrous, metal sheets to form a frame
structure, wherein the metal sheets define a continuous peripheral edge
forming an opening therein;
providing a plurality of layers of generally optically transparent fiber
pre-impregnated resin tape, where a resin of the tape comprises an aliphatic
epoxy resin, and has an index of refraction that generally matches an index
of refraction of a plurality of fibers of said tape;
interleaving said plurality of layers of generally optically transparent,
fiber pre-impregnated resin tape between the metal sheets to substantially
cover an entire surface portion of each one of the metal sheets and to fill the
Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

3
opening, the layers of pre-impregnated resin tape extending substantially to
outer peripheral edges of the metal sheets;
heating the metal sheets and the fiber pre-impregnated resin tape
layers as a unitary assembly within a tool such that the resin in each said pre-
impregnated tape layer melts and substantially covers the metal sheets and
fills the opening, said layers of optically transparent fiber pre-impregnated
resin tape, said metal sheets and said aliphatic epoxy resin imparting a
needed degree of structural strength to the window panel; and
once cured, the generally transparent, fiber pre-impregnated resin tape
layers and metal sheets form a structural panel having a see-through window
portion in the frame structure.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Graff 3,074,832 Jan. 22, 1963
Shorr 3,081,205 Mar. 12, 1963
Luvisi 3,534,004 Oct. 13, 1970
Bain 4,793,108 Dec. 27, 1988
Padden 5,500,272 Mar. 19, 1996
Day 5,665,450 Sep. 9, 1997
Demeester 5,885,714 Mar. 23, 1999

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Day in view of the collective teachings of Demeester,
Bain, Shorr, and Padden, and further in view of Luvisi. Claims 13, 15, 17,
20-22, 25, and 29-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the aforementioned references further in view of Graff.
We reverse the stated rejections.
Day is directed to a transparent composite (polymer-fiber-polymer
sandwich) in one embodiment and a transparent composite comprising a
transparent polymer matrix and a glass ribbon having refractive indices that
Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

4
are substantially the same in another embodiment, and methods of making
same (col. 3, ll. 27-38 and col. 4, ll. 18-38). Day teaches that the transparent
composites can potentially be used as replacements for the plastic layer
(PVB) typically used in laminated glass (col. 15, ll. 15-25).
The Examiner acknowledges that Day does not teach the claimed
method of forming a structural panel including the step of interleaving a
plurality of metal sheets used to form a frame structure with a plurality of
layers of fiber pre-impregnated resin tape as required by claim 1 (Ans. 4).
Consequently, Day does not teach or suggest the subsequently recited steps
of the method of claim 1, such as, heating the metal sheets and fiber pre-
impregnated resin tape layers as a unitary assembly within a tool and
forming a structural panel, after curing as required by claim 1. Nor has the
Examiner established that Day teaches or would have suggested a method
including the substantially corresponding steps of the other independent
claim (claim 13) involving the layering of a metal sheet and pre-impregnated
resin tape onto a tool, heating the same to from a skin panel with a plurality
of see-through openings, and securing such a skin panel to the fuselage of a
an airborne mobile platform.
Demeester is directed to a window comprising laminated safety glass
(two sheets of glass separated by plastified polyvinylbutyral (PVB)) for an
airplane cockpit (abstract).
Bain is directed to a plastic laminated window for a passenger air
cabin having a peripheral edge insert (abstract).
Shorr is directed to a safety glass glazing unit comprising two sheets
of glass bonded to a thermoplastic sheet wherein a metal frames 7 and 8 are
embedded in and bonded to the plastic sheet 3 and extend inwardly from the
Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

5
periphery of an extension thereof that extends beyond where the larger of the
two glass sheets extend (Figs. 5 and 6).
Padden is directed to a load transfer composite structure comprising
thin perforated sheets of titanium interleaved between graphite/epoxy plies
disclosed as being used in in an area where metal fittings are to be installed,
wherein epoxy plugs are formed in some of the titanium sheet perforations,
which plugs bond confronting surfaces of the epoxy plies (abstract). The
other holes 22 in the perforated titanium sheets of Padden are aligned with
holes in the epoxy plies and fitted with fasteners (col. 2, ll. 23-28). The
Examiner has not established that Padden is directed to or suggests a method
of forming a structural window panel and/or forming skin panels having see-
through portions in a method of manufacturing a fuselage using layered pre-
impregnated epoxy resin tape and interleaved or layered metal sheet(s)
having openings for forming the see through portion (window) therein, as
claimed by Appellant.
Luvisi is directed to epoxide polymer compositions.
Graff is directed to a plastic window plate structure wherein a metal
frame is coated with a glass fiber reinforced plastic and a sheet of synthetic
plastic can be mounted in the frame opening.
A review of the appeal record including the opposing arguments and
reasoning of Appellant and the Examiner reveals that the Examiner has not
reasonably established that the proposed combinations of the several diverse
applied references are attended by a suggestion that is found therein and/or
derived via logical reasoning from the collective applied prior art teachings,
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a method
corresponding to the method of either claim 1 or claim 13.
Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

6
In this regard and concerning the Examiner’s first stated rejection, the
Examiner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention “would have been motivated to provide the window of Day with
peripheral reinforcement in view of the collective teachings of
DEMEESTER, BAIN, SHORR, and PADDEN” is conclusive and is not
particularly directed to the particular materials and method steps required by
claim 1 (Ans. 5). For example, the Examiner has not furnished a persuasive
rationale for combining the teaching of Padden with respect to making a
composite structure for facilitating load transfer from fittings installed
therein with the method of making a transparent composite that is reinforced
with glass as taught by Day, which latter composite is disclosed as being
useful in forming windows, such as a replacement material for the plastic
layer (PVB) typically used in laminated glass (Day, col. 15, ll. 15-25). In
particular, the Examiner has not furnished a persuasive rationale that
encompasses the teachings of Day, Padden and the other applied references
and which rationale reasonably explains why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to a method corresponding to the claimed method
based on the several applied references’ teachings.
The additional application of Graff in the second stated rejection does
not cure the deficiency noted above with respect to the first stated rejection.
Rather, direction or instruction to arrive at performing the method of
either independent claim 1 or independent claim 13 appears to be found only
in Appellant’s Specification based on this appeal record as made evident
upon consideration of Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-15; Reply Br. 2-
8). Thus, it is our judgment that impermissible hindsight reasoning
underpins the Examiner’s proposed modifications to Day as advanced in the
Appeal 2010-004920
Application 10/654,765

7
rejections, rather than any impetus or instruction derived from the collective
teachings of the applied references.
It follows that we shall reverse both of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

sld