Ex Parte Riedel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2004

09229547 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte BRIAN L. RIEDEL, JOHN T. STRUNK
and RANDALL R. CLARK

Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547

ON BRIEF

Before KIMLIN, OWENS and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 3 and
8-19. Claims 5-7 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3,
8 and 13 are illustrative:
3. A method of forming and installing an acoustic panel
having a backside laminate ply build-up area to an aircraft
structure without loss of acoustic area comprising the steps of:
increasing the backside laminate ply build-up area
thickness in the region of blind fastener attachments of said
acoustic panel to react bearing loads and provide stiffness for
bending to retain a plurality of blind fasteners; and then
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-2-
backside fastening said plurality of single piece blind
fasteners to the aircraft structure.
8. An acoustic panel defining air flow direction in an
aircraft engine comprising:
a perforated inner sheet;
a honeycomb core arranged over said perforated inner
sheet;
an outer sheet attached to said honeycomb core; and,
blind bolts for backside fastening said acoustic panel
to aircraft engine structure.
13. In combination in an aircraft engine having an engine
inlet and a fan duct or thrust reverser:
an acoustical panel providing air flow direction;
said acoustical panel having an inner face sheet;
said inner face sheet having an entire perforated and
acoustically treated surface area;
a honeycomb core disposed over said perforated sheet;
and
an outer sheet attached to said honeycomb core;
said honeycomb core bonded to said perforated sheet;
and,
said outer sheet bonded to said honeycomb core.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies
upon the admitted prior art in addition to the following
references:
Dhoore et al. (Dhoore) 4,235,303 Nov. 25, 1980
Birbragher 4,759,513 Jul. 26, 1988
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-3-
Torkelson 5,060,471 Oct. 29, 1991
Morse 5,260,525 Nov. 09, 1993
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of
forming and installing an acoustic panel to an aircraft
structure, as well as the acoustic panel, per se. According to
appellants' specification, "the present invention obviates the
need for 'thru-bolt' acoustic panel retention means" (page 1,
paragraph four).
Appealed claims 3, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 13-17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by either
Birbragher or Dhoore. Claims 3 and 9-12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior
art or Torkelson in view of Morse. Also, claims 3, 8, 9, 18 and
19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over either Birbragher or Dhoore in view of Morse.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
set forth in the principal and reply briefs on appeal. However,
we find that the examiner's rejections under § 112, § 102 and
§ 103 are free of reversible error. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-4-
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 9,
15 and 16 under § 112, second paragraph. We concur with the
examiner that the language "said plurality of single piece blind
fasteners" of claim 3, and "the plurality of single piece blind
fasteners" of claim 9, is indefinite inasmuch as there is no
prior antecedent basis in the claims for such single piece blind
fasteners. Appellants do not address the single piece aspect of
the claim language, and we concur with the examiner that it is
not clear, for example, whether the "blind fastener attachments"
and "plurality of single piece blind fasteners" of claim 3 are
the same.
As for claim 15, we agree with the examiner that the
language "the attachment area . . . is enlarged" is indefinite
because the claim does not set forth any basis for comparison.
We also agree with the examiner that the claim 15 language
"thereby replacing the load carrying capability of high density
core and fasteners . . ." is indefinite since it is not clear how
the attachment area replaces the capability of the core and
fasteners. Manifestly, reducing the load on the core and
fasteners does not effect the load carrying capability of the
elements.
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-5-
We next consider the § 102 rejection of claims 13-17 over
either Birbragher or Dhoore. The principal argument advanced by
appellants is that neither reference describes the claimed
"interface sheet having an entire perforated and acoustically
treated surface area." According to appellants, the cited prior
art does "not acoustically treat 100% of the area available"
(page 5 of principal brief, first paragraph). However, since it
is well settled that claim language must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation during ex parte prosecution, we agree
with the examiner that the claim 13 language at issue does not
require that 100% of the interface sheet be perforated and
acoustically treated. Rather, the examiner has properly held
that the claim language only requires that an area of the
interface sheet, not 100% of the surface area of the interface
sheet, be entirely perforated and acoustically treated. Indeed,
appellants' specification specifically states that "[t]he
hereinafter-described invention allows the entire attachment area
to be treated, except for a narrow edge closeout area" (page 5,
paragraph three). Also, as explained by the examiner, the
disclosure in the references of adding a honeycomb core and an
outer sheet meets the requirement of an acoustically treated
surface area for the interface sheet. As for separately argued
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-6-
claims 15 and 16, we subscribe to the following rationale set
forth by the examiner:
The arguments in reference to "increasing the
outer sheet thickness in the region of fastener
attachments to react bearing loads and provide
stiffness for bending" is not persuasive because
clearly the other references provide a sheet with
thickness "increased" enough to provide the desired
strength. Applicant even fails in the claim language
to specify that only the area proximate the fasteners
are [sic, is] increased, so a panel of uniform
thickness that provides sufficient strength reads over
[sic, on] the claim language [paragraph bridging pages
5 and 6 of Answer].
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 9-12
under § 103 over the admitted prior art or Torkelson in view of
Morse. The central issue here is the obviousness of replacing
the fastening means of the admitted prior art and Torkelson,
thru-bolted fasteners, with the presently claimed blind
fasteners. Morse evidences that it was known in the art to
employ blind fasteners, or bolts, to attach acoustic panels to a
structure. In our view, although Morse does not disclose using
the blind bolts to attach acoustic panels to an aircraft
structure, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based
on the collective teachings of the admitted prior art, Torkelson
and Morse, to use the blind bolts of Morse as an alternative to
the thru-bolts of the admitted prior art and Torkelson.
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-7-
Appellants contend that the blind bolt, or fastening nut, of
Morse requires a threaded retention member 54 positioned within
the acoustic panel to receive the fastening nut. Appellants
maintain that "[t]he present invention eliminates the need for a
retention member to be embedded in the acoustic panel, and
therefore results in a uniform acoustic treatment effectiveness"
(page 6 of principal brief, paragraph four). However, we concur
with the examiner that appellants' argument is not commensurate
in scope with the rejected claims. The rejected claims do not
define any particular structure for the blind fasteners. Hence,
since the receiving nut of Morse is installed prior to assembly
and may, therefore, be considered as part of the structural
panel, there is no structural, patentable distinction between the
blind fastening nut of Morse and the blind fasteners within the
scope of the rejected claims.
The § 103 rejection of claims 3, 8, 9, 18 and 19 over
Birbragher or Dhoore in view of Morse essentially involves the
same issue of the obviousness of replacing the fasteners of
Birbragher and Dhoore with the blind fasteners of Morse. We
concur with the examiner that the requisite motivation arises
from the obviousness of replacing one form of fastener with
another known fastener which provides the same basic function.
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-8-
Appellants have failed to apprise us why using the fasteners of
Morse on the acoustic panels of Birbragher and Dhoore would have
been nonnobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants
simply state that which is acknowledged by the examiner to be
fact, namely, "[i]ncorporating blind fasteners of Morse '525 on
the acoustic panels of Birbragher '513 or Dhoore et al. '303 is
in contrast to the acoustic panel supports of Birbragher '513 or
Dhoore et al. '303" (page 7 of principal brief, paragraph four).
However, appellants have not proffered a substantive argument why
such an incorporation of the Morse fasteners would have been
nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further note
that appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which would serve to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established in the
examiner's § 103 rejections.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-9-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
-10-
Conard O. Gardner
The Boeing Co.
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 13-08
Seattle, WA 98124-2207